Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DUNDEE EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

Ordered,

That the Amendment to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made.

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 1, line 86, at end insert—

'Where under Standing Orders 48 to 59 a length or distance is required to be stated, marked or described in Imperial measurements it may be stated, marked or described in metric measurements instead of Imperial measurements, in the case of measurements in miles, furlongs, chains or yards, to the nearest equivalent expressed in whole metres and, in the case of measurements in feet and inches or decimal parts of a foot, to the nearest equivalent expressed in metres (taken, where necessary, to two decimal places of a metre); and for the purposes of Standing Orders 50(1) and 52(4) distances from one of the termini of a railway, tramroad or tramway (as the case may be) may be marked at intervals of two hundred metres'.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SELSEY FISHERMEN (PETITION)

Mr. Luce: I beg leave to present a Petition, signed on behalf of 23 fishermen of Selsey and District, in Sussex, which states:
That there will be a … depletion of the Inshore Fishing grounds … as a result of joining the European Economic Community on the 1st January 1973",

and of the proposed abrogation of the Fishery Limits (Territorial Waters Order in Council) Act, 1964. They also believe that there will be inadequate naval protection in the six- to twelve-mile zone and that immediate action is required to ensure the continued supply of high protein food.
They conclude by praying
that your Honourable House do retain the Fishery Limits Act of 1964 for an unlimited period and that your Honourable House establishes an adequate Naval Patrol system competent to protect all areas under their control and supervision, and urges your Honourable House to call for an immediate inquiry on these matters.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Internment

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he can now announce when he proposes to terminate internment in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stallard: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to consider further the release of all persons now interned; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): Internment will end as soon as the security situation permits.

Mr. Archer: I wish the Secretary of State well in the steps he has taken, but does he agree that if internment is to continue it can no longer be applied only to one side but must be applied to suspected terrorists whatever their persuasion?

Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly accept that. I am most anxious, as I have made clear, that we should reach a position in which internment can end. I must accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition.

Mr. Stallard: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many men are still incarcerated in Long Kesh who were


lifted last August following the disastrous decision which, in my opinion, has been the cause of much that has happened since? Is he aware that his gyrations in the past few weeks over the question of internment are clearly seen as an attempt to use these men as hostages for the good behaviour of the rest of the Catholic population? Will the right hon. Gentleman announce a date for the end of internment and imprisonment without trial in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: There is a later Question on the first point and I think that in fairness to the hon. Member who tabled it, but who is not present, I must delay giving the figures until it is reached. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about hostages. I agree that I must have regard to the security situation on the ground, but I must stick to the point which I have always made.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Secretary of State aware that what we on this side have always been concerned about is internment without trial, and that we support the detention of all those against whom charges are brought? For the rest, taking into account the problems involved, their release would do much to help the forthcoming political talks.

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I am most anxious that in all cases in which charges can be brought they should be brought. I continually urge that on the security forces. Like, I think, everyone in Northern Ireland, I am most anxious to ensure that as many people as possible who may be guilty of, or who can be charged with, offences are brought before the courts, which is the proper way of proceeding.

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of those interned and detained without trial on 9th August, 1971, are currently interned and detained; and at what places.

Mr. Whitelaw: Of the 245 persons detained on 9th August, 1971, 61 are still held at Long Kesh as internees.

Mr. Bidwell: While the retention of the 61 raises important questions—and I know the right hon. Gentleman's broadminded attitude—will he not now in retrospect accept that the wholesale internment policy of the Stormont Gov-

ernment on 9th August was an unmitigated disaster? As we are coming near to the first anniversary of the event, does he realise that if he can bring himself to say so it would go a long way towards developing harmonisation in the Province?

Mr. Whitelaw: What I must put to the hon. Gentleman is that I have enough problems on hand at present without looking forward to any or dealing with any in retrospect.

Mr. Winterton: According to the Press today, my right hon. Friend has signed papers to release 14 members of the IRA from internment. Does he feel that this will help the Prime Minister of the Republic to clamp down on the activities of the IRA which one of his Ministers has described as "a scourge"?

Mr. Whitelaw: I should make it clear to my hon. Friend that, as perhaps he saw in the Press, the people whom I released were members of the official IRA, who have been operating a cease-fire for a considerable time. That is rather different from the position of the Provisionals in the Republic.

Ulster Defence Association

Mr. Mather: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what talks he has recently held with representatives of the Ulster Defence Association.

Mr. Whitelaw: I met members of the Ulster Defence Association on 13th, 14th and 28th June, 1972.

Mr. Mather: Would not it be possible for the energies and activities of local defence organisations of whichever community to be recruited to the service of the Crown by the formation of a nonsectarian home guard to relieve the security forces of some of their burdens?

Mr. Whitelaw: In the first instance, I must make it clear that private armies, from wherever they may come, are a great danger to the State and must not be permitted. It was part of the operation conducted at the beginning of this week to see that that position stopped. There are ample opportunities for those who wish to serve the State in Northern Ireland. They can be recruited through the UDR, through the Reserve of the


RUC, and into the RUC itself. I am ready to consider other methods by which people may protect themselves. But I believe that the paramount need is to increase and improve the value of the security forces as they are at present constituted.

Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the request from the Minister of Justice in the Republic that all arms should be handed in. It is to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to have further talks with the UDA and other interested persons with a view to seek their co-operation so that he may make a similar announcement in the North.

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that we ought to be clear about the problem of arms. The problem in Northern Ireland is not licensed firearms but unlicensed firearms. The security forces are acting to try to find and to remove unlicensed arms wherever they may be found throughout the community. That is being done and has been done in the last few days. It is extremely important. When it comes to licensed firearms, I note what has been said by the Republic. They have exempted shotguns and airguns from their
proposals. The figures in Northern Ireland are that there are 72,437 shotguns and 11,000 airguns out of a total of 104,000. I will look at this situation. However, the shotgun position, in an agricultural community, is a reasonable one—and one which even the Republic is not seeking to change.

Mr. Orme: Returning to the point about the UDA, will the Secretary of State say what steps he is taking to remove this para-military force, often hooded, from the streets of Belfast and other cities in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that many people in this country feel that it is about time that these people were removed, just as the Provisional IRA was removed?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have made my attitude to private armies of all sorts perfectly clear. Anyone wearing a para-military uniform can be proceeded against. I do not intend to allow it to continue.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that members of the UDA have not appeared in the streets of Belfast with guns in their hands and,

therefore, that it is not fair to compare them with IRA men who have publicly justified their acts of violence and murder? Is not it a fact that the leaders of the UDA have condemned murder?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, it is. It is also fair—and I think that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to say so—that private armies of any sort do not aid the security situation in Northern Ireland. It is to that end that all our actions must be directed.

Harland and Wolff

Mr. Foley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of extra jobs expected at Harland and Wolff following the recent Government financial aid to the shipyard; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): The terms and conditions of Government assistance for this scheme are still under consideration but it is expected that some 4,000 jobs will be provided.

Mr. Foley: In view of the fact that the terms and conditions are still under consideration, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be no Government aid to Harland and Wolff or anyone else in Northern Ireland unless the Government are satisfied that employment and recruitment policies are on a nondiscriminatory basis?

Mr. Howell: The chairman and management of Harland and Wolff have given clear assurances that their recruiting policy is and will be one of nondiscrimination. As for discrimination throughout the private sector, there is another Question on the Order Paper on that specific point. I think that I had better leave that for the moment.

Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware that as a result of assistance given by the Government the shipbuilding facilities at Harland and Wolff, with a capacity to build up to a million tons, are now the best anywhere in Europe and that the productivity of the men matches them? Is not it fair to say that any assistance to Harland and Wolff will improve not only the employment position but the economic position of this country?

Mr. Howell: I gladly confirm that point. Assistance to Harland and Wolff means assistance to all the vast ancillary industries and additional outside facilities which go to make it a great shipyard.

Apprenticeships

Mr. Orme: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the number of school leavers who entered into apprenticeships during the last 12 months; and how these figures compare with England and Wales.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Channon): The statistics do not relate specifically to school leavers but to young people on their first entry into employment. The most recent figures are for the calendar year 1971, when 3,276 or 24·5 per cent. of all young people entering employment took up apprenticeships. The comparable figures for Great Britain were 112,302 or 24·3 per cent.

Mr. Orme: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does not he agree that there is a major problem with young people in Northern Ireland, as we witness daily on our television screens? Will the Government consider some special training schemes for apprenticeships through the training boards, even if employment is not readily available, so that young people can be given a trade and the basis for a start in life?

Mr. Channon: Certainly I will look at any suggestion that the hon. Gentleman cares to make. Already, a thousand boys are recruited by the Ministry of Health and Social Services each year to augment industry's intake of apprentices. Last week we announced a programme which included additional training for young people and other measures to help the employment situation. Certainly we intend to take energetic action about this.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the definition of "apprenticeship training" current throughout the United Kingdom which is used to collect statistics of the kind just given by him does not grossly inflate the picture since, in most cases, the period of training is less than 12 months in duration and is sometimes only a few weeks?

Mr. Channon: I have no evidence that the definition is unsatisfactory. If my

hon. Friend has any, perhaps he will send it to me.

Civil Service (Recruitment)

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of people recruited for the Civil Service in Northern Ireland during the last 12 months.

Mr. David Howell: The number of people appointed to the Northern Ireland Civil Service during 1971—the last period for which figures are readily available—was 2,085.
This figure excludes industrial staff and people engaged for seasonal or holiday work.

Mr. Cox: In view of past criticisms can the hon. Gentleman assure us that recruitment into the Civil Service in Northern Ireland is now free of religious prejudice? Can he assure us, further, that any future promotion within the service in Northern Ireland will be based on the abilities of those seeking promotion and on no other form of discrimination?

Mr. Howell: Certainly I give that assurance, and I think that it has been so in the past. The procedures have been rigorously fair. There is no evidence of discrimination or of a sectarian policy in recruitment. I gladly give that assurance for the present and for the future as well.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will my hon. Friend also assure us from the knowledge that he has that there was never any such religious discrimination in recruitment to the Civil Service and that there is a good proportion of the minority in the Stormont Civil Service at present?

Mr. Howell: That is what I said. There was never such discrimination. There are no precise statistics kept on the religious categories of existing Civil Service staff, but I think that any fair assessment will show that today there is no discrimination in the Northern Ireland Civil Service.

Referendum

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are now his plans for a referendum on the border.

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when special legislation will be introduced to provide for the holding of a plebiscite in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Whitelaw: The Government hope to introduce legislation in the autumn with a view to holding a poll as soon as possible after its approval.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I thank my right hon. Friend for, in effect, taking over my Bill. Will not a referendum enable those many Roman Catholics who, according to a recent poll, favour the Union to demonstrate that union with Britain is not a sectarian cause?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is not for me to prejudge what people might decide to do on such an occasion. But certainly I note what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Foley: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up an ambiguity which has developed in the last month or so? In response to a question from me, the right hon. Gentleman assured us that the political parties in Northern Ireland would be consulted about the form of a referendum and about the time of it. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet started consultations, is it wise on his part to announce dates before he has consulted them?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been discussing with and consulting a large variety of people about this, about conferences, and about other general matters. I believe that it would be advisable to hold such a plebiscite or referendum, whatever it is called, as soon as it can be reasonably held. That is why I say that I hope to hold it as soon as the legislation can be put through.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the plebiscite is held before the local government elections and that those elections are not turned into a conflict over the border? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the plebiscite will be held on a Province-wide basis and not on the electoral areas set out in the draft order?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be advisable to hold such a referendum before the local government elections. I must always remain firmly of the view, to the

House and to everyone else, particularly in view of recent developments, that the security actions must be paramount: they must come before everything else. Subject to that, I hope that it will be possible. The question of how the plebiscite will be held will be seen when the Bill comes forward, but I note my hon. Friend's view and I have no reason to dissent from it.

Mr. McNamara: What question or questions will be asked? Who is to ask them? What other interests will be invited to state an opinion upon the future of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: I must reserve that matter until I bring the legislation before the House, because it involves the whole question of the preparation of the legislation.

Mr. Deedes: Might there not be advantages in having the two votes—the referendum and the local government election—at the same time?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is a possibility. It has been strongly urged on me in previous supplementary questions and by some of those to whom I have talked that it would be better to have the referendum before the local government elections rather than at the same time. I am open to receive various suggestions, including that put forward by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Douglas: Is the Secretary of State well aware of what he is taking on board here? He acknowledges that the security position is paramount. Is he not willing to acknowledge also that statements about the plebiscite might in effect endanger the security position?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is exactly why I say that the security situation must be paramount.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not everybody is enamoured of his proposal for a referendum or plebiscite? Is he aware also that views on Ulster are not necessarily identical throughout Great Britain with those in Northern Ireland? Is it not reasonable that, if there is to be a plebiscite or referendum on one part of the United Kingdom, everybody in the United Kingdom should expect to take part?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says. As to the rest of the United Kingdom, the House must have regard to the perfectly clear assurances which have been given by Governments of both parties and which form the basis of the constitutional position on which Northern Ireland stands today. [HON. MEMBERS: "leave it there."] I know, but I am saying that people must have regard to that point, because that is the whole basis of the Act on which I am working and of the plebiscite which was promised at the time of the Act and which was at that time very widely supported.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Secretary of State accept that we agree with the view that a plebiscite or referendum would only polarise views and tell us what we know, but that we made it clear earlier this week in the House that a carefully planned plebiscite, perhaps held after the conference and perhaps after talking to all concerned, might be a valuable step?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. It was widely accepted on both sides of the House at the time that the Temporary Provisions Bill went through that a plebiscite was part of the proposals which were put forward. We are, therefore, committed to it. I have received much advice about the exact timing of it. I have stated my view that I still believe that it would be desirable to hold the plebiscite before the local elections if the security situation and all other circumstances permit.

Security (Mobile Equipment)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied that the mobile equipment available for security purposes in Northern Ireland is adequate; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Howell: I am satisfied that the mobile equipment used by the Royal Ulster Constabulary is fully adequate for the Force's security role. There are effective arrangements for reviewing police requirements in the light of changing needs.
Army equipment is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence.

Mr. Farr: How many soldiers have been killed or wounded in Army personnel carriers which have been in use until recently, and how long is it since the Army was first aware that the Irish Republican Army possessed bullets which would penetrate these carriers?

Mr. Howell: These are questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence. There is a later Question about these specific matters, and I must leave my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to answer that question.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the best mobile equipment for security forces is the law-enforcement agent of the Crown himself on his own feet on the beat?
Reverting to Question No. 2, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in every counter-insurgency situation since the war it has nearly always been the locally-recruited indigenous forces of law and order that have been essential for restoring the situation? Therefore, will he, looking to the longer term, do his best to build up locally-recruited law-enforcement agencies in Ulster?

Mr. Howell: There is validity in what my hon. Friend says, but we must reconcile what is desirable with what is possible.

Royal Ulster Constabulary

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will set up an advisory Committee on the police in Northern Ireland, to review the rôle of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the light of events in Ulster since 3rd October, 1969.

Mr. David Howell: The rôle of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is still in accord with the principles recommended by the Advisory Committee on Police in Northern Ireland. The practical application of these principles is a matter for the police authority and the chief constable.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am rather disappointed with that answer, because the sooner the police can take back responsibility for law and order in Northern Ireland from the Army the sooner Northern Ireland is likely to return to


normality. It follows that the Royal Ulster Constabulary of its present size and type is not capable of performing that task. As the return to police control is a matter of top priority, in the same way as security is a matter of top priority, we cannot sit back and leave this matter without an urgent re-appraisal.

Mr. Howell: That may be so, but it does not follow that we need an advisory committee on this matter. In my view, we do not. In the last three years events and the lessons learned have proved the need to evaluate the tasks of the RUC. This evaluation is now going on. I believe that there is no need for an advisory committee of the type my hon. Friend suggests. My right hon. Friend is in close touch with the police authority and the chief constable about these matters.

Mr. Foley: What task is being given to the RUC in the former no-go areas of the Bogside, the Creggan, Andersonstown and the Ardoyne? When does the hon. Gentleman foresee that the RUC will be able to patrol these areas again, as they did before events of recent years?

Mr. Howell: This raises long-term questions. The RUC is in the no-go area and plans are being developed with a view, which we have stated, of restoring normal services, including police services, to those areas as soon as possible.

Mr. Pounder: Will my hon. Friend give sympathetic consideration to the position of members of the RUC Reserve and, indeed, of any members of the part-time security forces who have been called up on mobilisation, to ensure that their employment will not be prejudiced whey the period of emergency is over? Will their jobs be kept for them?

Mr. Howell: I will consider that point sympathetically.

Mr. McNamara: Reverting to the answer which the Under-Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), what does the Under-Secretary mean by "normal police services"? This was the start of the trouble in the Bogside in 1968 and 1969. Armed police are back in the Bogside. The auxiliary police are viewed with grave suspicion. What discussions is it

intended to have with the leaders of the community in no-go areas about adequate and proper policing and not "normal policing" as it was before they became no-go areas?

Mr. Howell: It must be recognised that it is too soon to be dogmatic and precise about the final outcome. Discussions are now going on. All reasonable people in the whole community will want to give the discussions a chance so that sensible and practical arrangements can be developed.

Mr. Fowler: Does my hon. Friend agree that the standards of the RUC are exceptionally high and always have been? Has not the problem with the RUC always been undermanning? How is the recruiting policy for the RUC going?

Mr. Howell: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the standards of the RUC. Of course that is right. We have put as much effort as possible into our recruitment policy, and recruitment is proceeding. It is not always as good as we would wish, but it is proceeding satisfactorily.

House Building

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of houses and flats both private and public now under construction; and how this compares with the previous five years.

Mr. Channon: On 30th June, 1972, 15,973 houses and flats were being built—10,291 by public authorities and 5,682 by private enterprise. This figure is a record for the same date in the previous five years.

Mr. McNamara: May I congratulate the Minister of State on those figures for Northern Ireland, as representing a great triumph for public enterprise building? Is he aware that we would like to see as good figures in this country? Can he say to what extent he has, through the Central Housing Executive, worked out plans for getting rid of the slums which still exist in Belfast and other cities, the Shankills, the Falls and places of that description, so that people may have decent houses?

Mr. Channon: I am sure that the hon. Member will be pleased to learn that


this figure is a record for private enterprise building for the past five years, too. There are big plans for slum clearance in the cities in Northern Ireland and if the hon. Member would like further details I will get in touch with him.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind those districts where there have been no troubles but where the housing conditions are deplorable, especially in certain rural districts? Does he understand that some of these communities feel deeply aggrieved because they have been overlooked in building? Can he also keep in mind not only the Falls Road and the Shankill Road but Sandy Row where some of the housing is in a very deplorable state indeed?

Mr. Channon: I will draw the attention of the Housing Executive to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Legal Aid and Advice

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement as to the progress of his consultations with legal organisations in Northern Ireland relating to the introduction of legislation comparable to the Legal Advice and Assistance Bill.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that all changes currently being made in legal aid and advice arrangements in Great Britain will also be implemented in Northern Ireland; and what further proposals he has for law reform in this area of policy.

Mr. Channon: The further development of the Legal Aid and Advice Scheme in Northern Ireland is still being discussed between the Northern Ireland Ministry of Home Affairs and interested parties.

Mr. Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman say when these discussions are expected to end and when legislation will be introduced? Does he not recognise that the introduction of legislation along the lines of the Legal Advice and Assistance Bill is at least as essential in Northern Ireland as it is here, to promote the principle in active terms of equality before the law?

Mr. Channon: I note the hon. Member's views. I am not in a position to say when legislation will be introduced.

There are all sorts of proposals. The Director of Law Reform for Northern Ireland is considering a conference at the suggestion of the Child Poverty Action Group of Northern Ireland and there are a whole series of wide-ranging discussions going on about the topic at present. I note the hon. Gentleman's views about the urgency of the matter.

Bill of Rights

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has now received for a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland which would embrace the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. David Howell: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to Questions from the hon. Members for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) and St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) on 6th July.—[Vol. 840. c. 738–740.]

Mr. Judd: While thanking the hon. Member for that reply, may I ask him to assure the House that serious consideration will be given to this possibility in future discussions, since legislation of this kind might do a great deal to reassure the minority?

Mr. Howell: Serious consideration will be given to these things because these are serious issues, as I recognise. As my right hon. Friend suggested, some form of guarantee of this kind may well form part of the constitutional future as the political talks towards a settlement progress.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are not against a guaranteed Bill of Rights for the whole Community? Will he keep in mind that all right-thinking Protestant people believe in the fullest possible civil and religious liberty and that a proper Bill of Rights would be welcomed by all right-thinking people in the community?

Mr. Howell: I will certainly keep in mind what I think the House will recognise are very wise and encouraging words

Policy

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will


make a statement on the progress being made to achieve a political solution to the Northern Ireland problem.

Mr. Whitelaw: I discussed this matter among others with the Unionist Party and will meet them again. I have in addition met representatives of the Northern Ireland Labour Party, the Northern Ireland Liberal Party, the Alliance Party, the Republican Labour Party and the Democratic Unionist Party to discuss my proposal for a conference, and I hope to meet the Social Democratic Labour Party next week.

Mr. Douglas: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he will not now concede that we need to proceed apace to bring the political parties together in Northern Ireland to get on with a political solution so that the people who have the guns in their hands will not have their status enhanced? Is he aware that what we want to do is to enhance the status of politicians in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that one of the determinants in a political solution must be an easing of tension? Would he not further agree with some of the remarks made by the Leader of the Liberal Party that the time has come, with this enormous number of troops in Northern Ireland, to see that arms are handed in? Would he agree that there are far too many arms on both sides? Is he aware that now is the time to call in heavy calibre riles, pistols and hand guns?

Mr. Whitelaw: As for unlicensed arms, the figures on what has been achieved since the operation of 31st July are in themselves considerable. We have made considerable gains in arms in both Protestant and Catholic areas. If I mention that we have among these gains obtained 1½ tons of explosives it will be seen that that is a great deal in terms of the damage that might have been done if it had not been secured by us. We shall press on with this arms search as fast as we can. I have made my position about shotguns and air guns perfectly clear. I am prepared to look at higher calibre rifles, pistols and revolvers, but I must warn the House that even here there are a large number that are old war

relics and the rest. The real problem is that there are enormous amounts of arms for which there are no licences at all, and which we have to collect.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I come back to the question of tension? Would the right lion. Gentleman not agree that it is time that some of the people in the North realised the moderate nature and the views of all the main political parties in the South and that even Mr. Faulkner has talked about an All-Ireland Council which would not entail the North being part of the Republic? May we hope that eventually this sort of solution may be looked at, because it would be for the good of all concerned?

Mr. Whitelaw: All these matters will certainly be discussed and carefully considered.

Captain Orr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is now in a position to make a statement on Government policy about the future of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Whitelaw: The Government's policy continues to rest, as it always has done, on twin objectives: to restore peace and to destroy the capacity of men of violence to terrorise the community; and at the same time to engage in constructive discussion as to how the political, social and economic aspirations of the whole community can be met.

Captain Orr: Is the Secretary of State aware that while political discussion is welcome, the important thing in Ulster is to have political decisions about the future fairly soon? So long as things are left open in the way they now are, there is danger. Will my right hon. Friend look at the general question about who represents whom? Has he given thought to the possibility of holding an early General Election for the Parliament of Northern Ireland, without necessarily committing himself to the future status of that Parliament, in order to determine who represents the views of the majority and the minority?

Mr. Whitelaw: I believe it right to discuss the future with those holding a very wide variety of views and opinions, as we have done. I also believe that the idea of a conference of the parties, attended by the elected representatives,


would also provide a wide variety of views. I hope thereafter that it will be possible urgently to produce the best solution that can be found.

Mr. Orme: Will the Secretary of State not agree that as Mr. Lynch consulted the SDLP, the elected representatives of the Catholic community, the other day, about the cease-fire and about the difficulties arising from last Monday, the Republic would be a moderating influence in any talks? Will he not consider bringing the Republic in at an early date, because this would then involve the whole of the Irish people, and I am sure that it would reassure the Protestants that the people in the South do not want automatic reunification?

Mr. Whitelaw: There are two sides to that question. On the one hand, we must make it perfectly clear that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that therefore a solution is the responsibility of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, I believe that the Republic has a considerable part to play in the removal of the capacity of terrorists to wreck the community, and anything that can be done to encourage the Republic to play that part, as I am sure it will, is extremely important. That is the basis on which I would like to work.

No-Go Areas

Mr. McMaster: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in restoring law and order in no-go areas in Northern Ireland; and what his present plans are for a complete solution to this problem.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at what date he now envisages ending the no-go areas in Londonderry and Belfast under both Catholic and Protestant control.

Mr. Mather: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what instructions he is giving to the security forces in Northern Ireland to neutralise those districts from which terrorist attacks are launched.

Captain Orr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is now taking towards preventing new no-go areas in Northern Ireland, and in

bringing the existing areas back under normal civil jurisdiction.

Mr. Whitelaw: The main answer to all these Questions was seen in the action taken by the Security Forces at 4 a.m. last Monday

Mr. McMaster: I welcome this action, but has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the totally unjustifiable and murderous assault from a semi-no-go area in my constituency yesterday on ordinary workmen in the Sirocco works? There is still a large number of armed IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland living and operating from the no-go areas, as we have seen in the past two or three days. Will he therefore state whether he is to carry out intensive searches followed by a search and destroy policy in order to establish complete peace in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that my hon. Friend will not now start to go back again on what we have been determined to do—

Mr. McMaster: But people were shot in my constituency yesterday.

Mr. Whitelaw: I will come to that point in a moment. The actions taken last Monday were to put an end to all no-go areas in Northern Ireland, wherever they may be. I am absolutely determined that no-go areas shall not start again. I do not know quite what semi-no-go areas are, but I will not have any of them.
I come to the serious point concerning the action at the Sirocco works yesterday where a gunman fired two shots and, most regrettably, hit, fortunately not seriously, two people working in that works. Immediately that happened I was contacted. I spoke to the GOC, and extra troops were put into the area. Every protection was given to those workers going into and coming from their work. That was done again this morning and it will continue to be done, because it is the duty of the Security Forces to protect the whole community. I am glad to say that as a result of this action the area and the move to work this morning was completely quiet. I hope that that situation will continue. I understand my hon. Friend's concern over this difficult incident, but I hope


that it will be appreciated that, while we will do everything we can to find the terrorists and to destroy their capacity, the odd sniper will not be removed overnight. That is why all the protection that can be given by the Security Forces will be given.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on the action that has been taken. Will he also congratulate the armed forces, particularly the command over there, on the efficiency and speed and the lack of loss of life with which the operation was carried out? It was a most highly commendable operation. Will he confirm that the forces will stay in these no-go areas for as long as necessary and that he will make every effort to stop and apprehend, where necessary, those IRA members who have escaped over the border but who will wish to return to carry on their nefarious operations?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying, as my hon. Friend said in my absence on Monday, how much we admire the military operation undertaken on that day. I saw it at first hand and it gave me an opportunity to realise how very much the Army had progressed in the 20 or so years since I was in it. It was a magnificently planned operation in every way. It was vitally important in the Government's judgment that the operation be carried out with the absolute minimum of casualties and that was why the warning was given the previous night. I believe also that because of the various actions taken over a period, the great danger of the civilian population taking to the streets, which could have caused casualties, was avoided. That was a significant factor in the way in which the operation was carried out.

Mr. Edward Short: May I make a practical suggestion for restoring confidence among the people of Derry? The Secretary of State will be aware of the treatment of Magee College by the new University of Ulster by which this college is to become an extra-mural college. That has caused very great resentment in Derry. Will the Secretary of State consult the new University and, if it is not possible to retain the college as a university college affiliated to the university, see whether a polytechnic can be established

there? That would be extremely useful to the economic development of Derry and it would help to restore confidence among the people of Derry in the Government's good faith.

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and I am hopeful—and I believe it will be possible—that Magee will continue as a constituent part of the new university.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot allow more supplementaries on this Question. We must turn to Questions to the Prime Minister.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now appoint a separate Lord President of the Council.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister realise that this is an affront to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is very important that we should have a Leader of the House who will protect the interests of the House as a whole, irrespective of the party considerations in which we are so often involved. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake at least to make a gesture of appeasement to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and to make him Leader of the House in order that we might have an agreeable confrontation between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), because that would make a very pleasant change?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend's responsibilities to the whole House as Leader of the House are in no way affected by his being the Lord President of the Council.

PORTSMOUTH

Mr. Judd: asked the Prime Minister on how many occasions in 1972 he has officially visited Portsmouth.

The Prime Minister: I visited HMS "Ark Royal" in Portsmouth Harbour on 7th July.

Mr. Judd: The next time the right hon. Gentleman is passing through Portsmouth on his way to the Solent or the open sea, will he allow me to take him on a visit to some of the more disadvantaged areas of the city where people live in soul-destroying physical surroundings? Will he also consider the bitter contrast between the social extravaganza surrounding Cowes Week and the predicament of most people in Portsmouth where the dominant employer is the Government, where wages are below the national average and where too many people are struggling to survive on basic wage rates below £20 a week? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to close this gap?

The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to look at any part of Portsmouth whenever I go there.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whenever he comes to Portsmouth, whether on a public or on a private visit, he will be given a great welcome by the people of Portsmouth?

The Prime Minister: That has always been the case so far.

NORTHERN IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech of 19th July to the Royal Commonwealth Society on the subject of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at the Royal Commonwealth Society on 19th July on Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 19th July, Sir.

Mr. Redmond: Has my right hon. Friend had any firm reaction from the people of Ulster to the expression which he gave in that speech to his determination that there is no question of a united Ireland until there is clear evidence of a firm majority for it in the Province? What more can we back benchers do to assure the people of Ulster that very few

hon. Members would even consider changing the border in the foreseeable future?

The Prime Minister: The undertaking to the people of Northern Ireland is on the Statute Book, and it is an undertaking of all three parties. The best that any hon. Member can do is to reinforce that undertaking instead of casting doubts on it.

Mr. Rose: Notwithstanding the current military situation, will the Prime Minister confirm that the only long-term solution for Northern Ireland is a political one? Will he bring into talks all sections of the community who can help in ending the violence and whose influence counts? Will he also allow direct talks with the Republic of Ireland, which has an important rôle to play?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of the question, that is the objective of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has invited all parties, and representatives of all sections of the communities, in Northern Ireland to take part in talks with him. I personally assured the Prime Minister of the Republic almost a year ago that on any matters affecting the United Kingdom as a whole and the Republic we should, of course, remain in the closest contact and that we could always have discussions with him either directly or through diplomatic channels. This remains the position. As I told the House on Tuesday, I was gratified by what he said in the Dail about the close relations between our two countries

Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that two things would greatly restore the confidence of the people of Ulster? One is to proceed early with the promised referendum, and the other is for my right hon. Friend to say that he has had a firm assurance from Mr. Lynch that he will not permit his territory to be used as a safe haven for those who escaped after the admirable operations of last weekend.

The Prime Minister: Mr. Lynch has made it public in the last 48 hours that he will deal with illegal activities in the Republic of any kind whatever. I am sure that he will keep to his word in this.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Following the answers given by the Secretary of State


this afternoon on the question of arms, which appear to show an encouraging degree of willingness to look into this problem, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that before the House rises this matter is dealt with by the Government and a statement made? Our troops are placed in an impossible situation. There are arms on both sides, legally held in many cases, and it is clear that there are too many people on both sides in Northern Ireland who cannot be trusted with arms in this situation. There have been several private assassinations, and yesterday there was the deplorable shooting of workers on their way to work, which the whole House condemns. Will this matter be looked at again?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend and the Government are looking into this matter. We have done so from time to time and we are looking at it again in the new circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman from his past experience will realise the acute problem that arises from unlicensed arms. It is not a question of asking for them to be turned in but of getting hold of them. We will look at the question of licensed arms, but we should not underestimate the real problem, which is that of the unlicensed arms.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when this idea was first put forward in April, 1971 we had in mind illegal arms? If everyone, except in most stringent circumstances, is forbidden to have a weapon, it is very much easier to conduct searches. So many searches, inevitably, have been of Catholic homes, and it is important that there should be absolute impartiality. The troops want to exercise impartiality and to round up any arms that should not be there and, as I suggested the other day, there should be a mandatory prison sentence for anyone found in possession of illegal arms—and they would all be illegal if gun licences were revoked.

The Prime Minister: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the troops will be impartial in their search for arms. Wherever there is evidence that there are arms, they will go after them. I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that widespread indiscriminate searches for arms are damaging to relations with

the civilian population. This matter is being looked at and we shall endeavour to give the right hon. Gentleman an answer before the House rises.

Mr. Thorpe: I accept that the question of unregistered arms is the most important single factor, but is the Prime Minister aware that the number of arms per thousand of the population is higher in Northern Ireland than it is anywhere else in Western Europe, and that it is precisely in such a situation of extreme tenson, where tempers are apt to flare up quickly that registered arms also should be handed in, so that the number of persons who have their own private armouries is kept to an absolute minimum?

The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to accept the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman about the relationship between arms in Northern Ireland and in the rest of Europe, or the rest of this country. My right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary gave figures to the House, and I think it is well known that the great majority of weapons are held in the rural areas of Northern Ireland on roughly the same basis as they are held in rural areas in this country. The real need is to bring in all arms which can be used by the communities against each other, and so achieve the Government's purpose of removing the means of violence.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether there is evidence that any of the murders during the campaign of terror were committed by persons using licensed weapons? Are not the regulations for air pistols in Northern Ireland slightly different from those applying in the rest of the United Kingdom, in that air pistols are included as licensed weapons?

The Prime Minister: I should like to look into the last point. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the murders were committed by people holding licensed weapons.

CBI AND TUC (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement following his meeting with the Confederation of British Industry and


Trade Union Congress on Tuesday, 18th July.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 1st August in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and the hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).—[Vol. 842, c. 342.]

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister accept that subsequent to that meeting progress has been made by the CBI and the TUC on a conciliation policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman take cognisance of the national opinion poll in today's Daily Mail, which states categorically that the majority of the British electorate are against the Industrial Relations Act? Will the right hon. Gentleman put that Act on ice and take note of the TUC view that a minimum wage policy would go a long way towards solving the industrial problems?

The Prime Minister: While I do not take particular cognisance of public opinion polls, I think the hon. Gentleman has drawn entirely the wrong conclusion from the poll published in today's Daily Mail. The Government have encouraged the setting up of conciliation machinery, and I am delighted that the CBI and the TUC have now put into operation the first stage of the conciliation machinery which they propose. The test of it will be in the extent to which it is successful in bringing about conciliation without at the same time bringing about inflation.

Mr. Adley: Would not putting the Industrial Relations Act on ice be equivalent to putting the country on the rocks? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that today's announcement of a joint agreement between the CBI and TUC is exactly what those of us who supported the Industrial Relations Act always hoped would happen, in spite of the protestations of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: The Industrial Relations Act in its separate spheres makes provision for conciliation. There is also machinery in the Department of Employment and there is the new machinery which is being created between the CBI and the TUC. To the exten to which other conciliation is used, the pro-

visions of the Industrial Relations Act need not be implemented.

Mr. John Mendelson: Is it not clear from the expressions of public opinion in recent weeks that it would be wise for the Government and the Prime Minister to listen to the voice of the trade union movement on matters with which it is particularly concerned governing conditions of work. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Solicitor-General not to adopt the provocative attitude he adopted at the end of Tuesday's debate and not to reintroduce the spirit of confrontation which the Government must abandon?

The Prime Minister: I can think of no one less provocative than my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole House will welcome the agreement between the CBI and TUC on conciliation and arbitration services? Does he recall that this proposal was originally made by Mr. Jack Jones in an article in the New Statesman and that it was fully discussed with my right hon. Friends and myself before it was discussed with the CBI? Therefore, obviously we welcome it. Does he also recall that he made a great point of insisting that any such service should have within it either some Government representation or representation of the consumer interest? Since this does not appear to be in the proposals in their present state, will he say whether he intends that that should feature in the further development of the scheme? Has he dropped his idea, or has it been rejected by the two parties?

The Prime Minister: I also recall that I suggested the idea in 1959 when I was Minister of Labour. Indeed, the idea may have been suggested before that. I would not claim any proprietary rights. I welcome the fact that it has occurred. In regard to the second part of the question, the discussions we have been having have been in the context of containing inflation. That is why the real test of the conciliation machinery established by the two sides will be in the extent to which it can bring about conciliation without bringing about inflation.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that the decision of the TUC and CBI in making


such an agreement indicates that not only the TUC but also the employers' organisation are not in favour of the continuation of the Industrial Relations Act? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] The statement made by the Director General of the CBI indicated that the employers wanted the Act used only as a last resort. In view of the attitude taken by both unions and employers about this legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will look again at the Act, as he has promised, and will make proposals for drastic amendments, until the Bill is finally repealed?

The Prime Minister: The CBI has made it plain that it does not wish the Act to be repealed or suspended. It is perfectly prepared to play its part and to put forward amendments when it has seen the operation of the Act and the Government, as we have announced, are fully prepared to consider them. I hope that the TUC will take the same responsible view as the CBI and that it will operate the Act. We have given our undertaking that we will consider amendments which it wishes to suggest.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member raise it later, please.

Mr. McMaster: The point of order arises out of Questions to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. I did not raise it at the time in accordance with your earlier ruling, but when the Prime Minister was asked a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition about a shooting in my constiuency yesterday, in the context of legally and illegally held arms his reference was incorrect—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The content of questions and answers is not a matter for the Chair. Mr. Robert Carr, statement.

Mr. McMaster: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This shooting came from an automatic weapon, a Thompson sub-machine gun.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other ways in which the hon. Member can

make his point. He cannot make it in a point of order to me.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

Proclamation of State of Emergency

Message front Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. SPEAKER, as follows:
The Emergency Powers Act, 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act, 1964, having enacted that if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists; and the present stoppage of work among persons employed in the ports having, in Her Majesty's opinion, constituted a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act of 1920 as so amended.
Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated the third day of August, 1972, and made in pursuance of the said Act of 1920, as so amended, to declare that a state of emergency exists.

PROCLAMATION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY

The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
The Government consider that the present industrial situation in the ports constitutes a threat to the essentials of life of the community which is sufficiently serious to justify taking immediate emergency powers to maintain essential services. They have, therefore, thought it right to advise the proclamation of a state of emergency under Section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, as amended, followed by the making of emergency regulations under Section 2.
The regulations will come into force at midnight tonight. Copies will be available this afternoon. I shall shortly make an announcement about the arrangements for debating the usual Motions on the address and on the regulations. The regulations are almost identical with those made last February; the only significant change is a new regulation to facilitate the supply of medicines.
The use of the powers will be limited, as always, to what the essential public interest requires, and it is premature to say what orders may have to be made under the regulations.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: First of all, may I belatedly, since this is the first time I have met the right hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box, congratulate him, or perhaps commiserate with him, on taking on the job of Home Secretary?
This Government have a remarkable record of productivity in days lost in industry and in the production of emergencies; this is the fourth emergency which is taking place during their term of office. There was precisely one in the previous 15 years.
May I now ask the right hon. Gentleman the following questions? First, will he confirm that as far as possible the emergency regulations will not be used unless absolutely necessary, in view of the very good opportunity of an early
settlement of the strike? Will he confirm that troops will not be used in the docks, unless it becomes absolutely critical. Secondly, may I ask about price control of essential foods, particularly in the light of sharp increases in prices of certain fruit and vegetables? Will he consider introducing maximum price controls for these commodities? Thirdly, will he say something about supplies to the outlying islands of Scotland as well as to the Channel Islands? Finally, does he feel that there is now a good opportunity for assurances to be given to dockers with regard to the security of future employment in container depots?

Mr. Carr: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her opening remarks, but not for those which immediately followed. I must remind the hon. Lady and the House that, although the number of days lost by strifles is very serious—there has at last been brought about a sensible downward trend in the number of strikes—for the first time for nearly a decade—in a matter to which the Donovan Commission drew particular attention as being extremely serious in terms of the welfare of this country.
In answer to the hon. Lady's questions, I certainly confirm unequivocally that no powers will be used unless, in the Government's opinion, they really are necessary to maintain essential services

for the community. That, of course, applies to the use of troops.
Secondly, the emergency regulations contain powers for the control of prices, including essential food prices. We shall watch the situation carefully, and I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on that matter. (An HON. MEMBER "What can he do about it?"] It is easy for hon. Members opposite to talk about imposing price controls, as if this were easily accomplished. It does not always have the desired effect. To be effective, it requires a substantial administrative procedure and machinery, as the House knows. Therefore, it has to be considered very carefully before such a course is embarked upon. I will consider the matter carefully, and the powers are there.
Thirdly, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, the outer islands of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and so forth, are very much in our minds and will be a matter to which we shall pay particular attention.
On the hon. Lady's last point, I understand that the Jones-Aldington Committee met yesterday and is to meet again next Tuesday and that, apart from meetings, it is proceeding urgently with discussions. Certainly I hope that these meetings of the Jones-Aldington Committee will lead the union to feel able to recall its docks delegates conference in the hope that this will lead to an early return to work.

Mr. Orme: As the emergency arises out of the docks strike and the failure of the Jones-Aldington Committee Report to be accepted, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he expects that Committee to make a report and whether he has had any discussion with Mr. Jones and Lord Aldington on the progress being made? When is the House to have a report, even an interim report, on this dispute?

Mr. Carr: I should have thought the House had already had some reports on this dispute on a number of occasions. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is in touch with both Mr. Jones and Lord Aldington. I am not absolutely sure, but I believe the latest meeting between them was as recent as this morning. I am not quite


sure about that, but I think that may have been so. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend has something further to report he will do so. I am sure that we all want to give the maximum support and help to Mr. Jones and Lord Aldington and the members of their Committee in so clarifying the ideas they have in mind and the proposals they have put forward as to make them better understood and acceptable to both the dock delegates conference and the dockers themselves.

Sir Gilbert Longden: In addition to our own essential national interests, will any regard be had to the interests and livelihoods of our overseas suppliers in the Channel Islands and elsewhere?

Mr. Carr: Great hardship is caused to many people, not only to those resident in the United Kingdom, but a strike of this kind. For example, there is much hardship to suppliers in the Channel Islands, as we have seen, and potentially in Northern Ireland and much further afield. That is why we must all hope that everything possible will be done to bring this dispute to a conclusion.

Mr. Molloy: Regarding the problem of possible black marketeering and rising prices, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has time and again demonstrated that he would not recognise a food price rise if he saw one? Is there not grave danger that if there is a rise in prices and malevolent people try to attribute this to the dockers, that can only exacerbate the situation—[Interruption.] That is a demonstration of what I am talking about—and make the job of the Government, the TUC, the CBI and the dockers very difficult? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore make a more demonstrative statement that the Government will not stand by and allow an unjustified increase in prices and any form of black marketeering?

Mr. Carr: We shall do all we can to see that prices are kept as low as possible. All of us would be foolish to imagine that we can have this kind of disruption, whatever controls we may have or use, without it having some effect on prices while it is going on. I hope

the hon. Gentleman will practise all he preaches to others and avoid making exacerbating statements.

Mr. John Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the point raised by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) about vegetables and fruit getting more expensive? This is the season of the year when British home-produced vegetables and soft fruit are available in the greatest plenty at the cheapest prices. If people are stupid enough to buy imported fruit and vegetables at this time they deserve to pay over the odds. Further, will my right hon. Friend look with some urgency at the Channel Islands supplies because if the Channel Islands situation is further disrupted future supplies of tomatoes will be reduced, and if supplies are reduced in future years as a result of this situation prices will indeed rise in 1973 and onwards?

Mr. Russell Kerr: End of commercial.

Mr. Carr: I hope the whole House and, indeed, a far wider audience will heed my hon. Friend's commendations on the merits of British home-grown fruit and vegetables. We are very much aware of the situation of the Channel Islands from not only the immediate but the longer-term point of view regarding the future supplies which my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Atkinson: When the Home Secretary opens the debate on the emergency powers next week, will he inform the House in some detail of the kind of mechanism he proposes to use to control prices? Will he also tell us about the kind of organisation he has in mind for policing prices and the action he intends to take? In view of the announcement he has just made, will he now confirm that he will include these details in his speech when he opens the debate?

Mr. Carr: I hope I shall deal adequately with the regulations when I open the debate. I think the whole House must recognise two matters. First, we hope that this dispute will not be much longer extended. That must surely be our main hope. Secondly, we must accept that the establishment of a system of price control, if it is to be more than window dressing, really has to be backed by large administrative machinery and


substantial enforcement measures which, by their very nature, cannot be established quickly. I will, of course, bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I very much hope the dispute will be settled long before that.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is it not scandalous that, at a time when millions of people in the world are living just above the subsistence level, substantial cargoes of food are rotting in ships in the ports of this country? Is it not possible, even now, to persuade those who are responsible to make some exceptions in order that this food shall be brought in?

Mr. Carr: I note what my hon. Friend says, which I am sure will have a large measure of agreement. I believe the right way of dealing with this matter is to leave any approaches which may be made to specific issues at specific places when the matter can be put to the dockers and their representatives in concrete terms.

Mr. Bidwell: In view of the events in the National Industrial Relations Court, the reasons given for the ultimate release of the five dockers, and the bearing which their imprisonment has had upon consideration of the acceptance of the Jones-Aldington Report, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that some word of regret for those events, if not an apology to the dockers concerned and their wives, would go a long way towards alleviating the present situation having regard to the 18 abstentions and the exacerbation of industrial relations over the whole economy that that has caused?

Mr. Carr: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks and judgment of the situation. In the interests of what we all desire, I will take a grip on myself and refrain from replying to the hon. Gentleman as I should wish to do.
Message to be considered upon Tuesday next.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will indicate the business of the House for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Coun- cil and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 7TH AUGUST—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Expenditure, together with the subsequent evidence published by the Defence Sub-Committee.
Remaining stages of the Horserace Totalisator and Betting Levy Boards Bill, and of the Land Charges Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the National Debt Bill [Lords], and the Poisons Bill [Lords]. which are consolidation Measures.
TUESDAY, 8TH AUGUST.—Consideration of Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message and of the Motion to approve the emergency regulations.
Procedure Motions relating to Privilege and the election of the Speaker.
Consideration of Church of England (General Synod) Measures.
Remaining stages of the National Debt Bill [Lords] and of the Poisons Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY, 9TH AUGUST.—It Will be proposed that the House should meet at 11 a.m., take Questions until 12 noon, and adjourn at 5 p.m. until Tuesday, 17th October.
Now that the end of what has been a particularly arduous parliamentary term is in prospect, I wonder Mr. Speaker, whether on behalf of the House, I may say "thank you "to you and the other occupants of the Chair, to the Officers of the House, to all the staff and the police for the splendid way in which we have been served in difficult conditions, often until very late hours.

Mr. Wilson: I hope that it will be in order to echo what the right hon. Gentleman said in paying tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, to your Deputies, to other Officers of the House, and to the staff and the police.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that after that catalogue of thanks there are no thanks due to the Government for the record of this Session? Will he study the state of parliamentary business at the end of this Session, with many Supply Days which we have been unable to take up, with a large number of Statutory Instruments which we have not


been able to debate—as is the right of the House—and with far fewer than usual White Papers and other Government announcements debated in Government time?
With regard to Tuesday's business on the emergency regulations—and I am putting this question to him as Leader of the House, not as author of the regulations—is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the ordinary course of events we should have wanted a major full day's debate on this—though it will still be a major debate—because of our view of the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for the state of affairs which has brought about this fourth state of emergency? But it is fair to say to the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Leader of the House, that as he speedily conceded what we asked for last week—namely, a full day's debate on the responsibility of the Government in bringing about this strike—I hope, as I think many hon. Members will, that the debate might be over at a reasonable hour—perhaps not later than 8 o'clock; perhaps a little earlier—because on the major points we have had a debate and registered a vote earlier this week.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman will recall the exchanges last week about the date of the debate on the Motion for the House to adjourn until 17th October. Can he now confirm, because I did not hear it read out in his statement, that this will not take place on Wednesday, the day of the Adjournment, and will he say when it will?

Mr. Carr: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the debate on Tuesday on the emergency powers. We recognise that it is a major and serious debate, but I am grateful to him for what he said; namely, that in view of the debate that we had earlier this week next Tuesday's debate might not last for as long as it might otherwise have done.
What I have in mind about the debate on the Motion for the Summer Adjournment is that perhaps it might follow the debate on the emergency powers, because I agree that it would not be satisfactory to the House to leave that debate until Wednesday. Having considered Monday's business, I believe that what I have

suggested will probably be for the overall convenience of the House.
My reply to the right hon. Gentleman's point about Statutory Instruments is that there have been one or two opportunities recently which have not been taken advantage of when there might have been Prayers. I do not want to make too much of this, but even now it may be possible before next Wednesday to arrange a Prayer, if any hon. Members wish it, through the usual channels.

Sir D. Renton: In arranging future business will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the great desirability of our having a debate on the reorganisation of water supplies and sewerage before the Government decide upon the terms of their legislative proposals?

Mr. Carr: I shall certainly bear in mind what my right hon. and learned Friend said. As there is no chance of a debate before next Wednesday, I shall have time to consider it very carefully.

Mr. James Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that as from 1st September the Icelandic Government intend to enforce the 50-mile limit off their shores. Is he aware of the intense anxiety and, indeed, the deep indignation in the fishing ports of Hull, Fleetwood and Aberdeen about this? Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss the matter with his right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and ensure that there is a statement about this and about what contingency planning the Government intend to make for the defence of our fishermen after 1st September?

Mr. Carr: I am very much aware, as is my right hon. and noble Friend and, indeed, the whole Government, of the seriousness of this situation for the whole of our fishing industry, from whichever port it operates. The International Court is now considering our application for an interim settlement of the matter, and that, I think, must be our main action, but I shall talk to the Secretary of State for Defence about it. The difficulty in striking a balance between the need for enough statements and too many is very great, most of all at this time of the year.

Sir J. Rodgers: Can my right hon. Friend say whether his right hon. Friend


the Secretary of State for Employment intends to make a statement before the House rises on picketing, which has been the subject of a departmental inquiry by that Department?

Mr. Carr: I doubt whether any statement will be made before the Summer Recess, but I shall talk to my right hon. Friend about that. I know that the study is going on, because I initiated it when I was in that position.

Dr. Summerskill: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to provide time for a debate on the White Paper on the reorganisation of the National Health Service, rather than that the Government should hurriedly introduce a Bill at the beginning of the next Session? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the White Paper is incomplete, with a great lack of information on vital matters, and that it is wide-ranging and highly controversial on many points, both inside and outside the House?

Mr. Carr: I take note of what the hon. Lady said, and I shall talk to my right hon. Friend about it and consider the matter. There is a temptation, as one sees oneself released from the pressure which has been standing in the way of our summer holidays, to imagine that in the autumn there will be time for everything. I am sure that when we come to the autumn that will not be quite so easy. I shall not make a promise, but I shall consider the matter seriously.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 438, which is signed by about 22 hon. Gentlemen opposite and contains a savage censure upon one of Her Majesty's Judges of the High Court?

[That this House condemns absolutely the action of Sir John Donaldson, President of the National Industrial Relations Court, in committing the five dockers to prison; and expresses its utter contempt for Sir John Donaldson and his Court.]

Is it not in accordance with precedent and, indeed, with common decency to the distinguished judge named that the Motion should either be removed from the Order Paper or else be debated forthwith?

Mr. Carr: I shall consider what my hon. and learned Friend has had to say.

I am sure that he is right in what he says. I think that we must consider the number of supporters for this Motion. But I shall take the matter into account. However, I do not see any chance of debating this before Wednesday. I should like seriously to ask all hon. Members who have signed the Motion or who might still be thinking of signing it to consider very seriously what an important matter it is to censure a judge of the High Court.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether the Government propose to announce any plans for the steel industry before the recess? Is he aware that there is strong evidence now that at the Shotton steelworks in my constituency an announcement will be made that 7,000 men will be made redundant? If my constituency is to be annihilated in this rather brutal manner, may we at least have an assurance that a statement will be made in the House?

Mr. Carr: My right hon. Friend is committed as soon as possible—but I do not think that that will be before the rising of the House for the summer—to making a statement about the long-term strategy of the British Steel Corporation's investment plans. But one should look back at past practice and the terms of the nationalisation Statute, which was introduced by the Labour Party, and the practice of the Labour Party on that. I do not think that I can promise a statement in the House about every action which the British Steel Corporation is entitled to take under the Statute passed by the Labour Party when in Government. But I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to this matter. I know that he and the corporation have been and are in contact about the great need for the maximum degree of consultation with unions, communities and local authorties whenever any major closures unfortunately have to be considered.

Mr. David James: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 404, which has been signed by 208 hon. Members from all quarters of the House, urging Her Majesty's Government to ban importation of all whale products? Will he bear in mind the fact that this flows from the almost unanimous decision of the Stockholm conference that there should be a 10-year moratorium on all whaling, which was not agreed to


by the International Whaling Commission? I believe that the Motion represents the views not only of this House, the Fauna Preservation Society and the Friends of the Earth but of the electorate and the civilised world? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to see whether action can be taken in this matter?

[That this House, noting that the International Whaling Commission has failed to implement the Stockholm Conference decision to put a ten-year moratorium on whaling, once again urges Her Majesty's Government to prohibit the import of all whalemeat and whale products.]

Mr. Carr: Unfortunately, the Motion for the 10-year moratorium, to which my hon. Friend refers, and for which the United Kingdom delegate voted, was not carried. I am sure that we regret that, and I hope that the House will take note that the United Kingdom delegate sought to get into the team. Nevertheless, it is recognised that what was achieved, in spite of not passing that resolution, was quite important. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is making a written answer today, to which I might refer the House.

Mr. Shore: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that we get a statement this week on the preparations following the Foreign Ministers' meeting for the forthcoming Common Market summit meeting later in the year? As economic and monetary union appears to be the front runner of the subjects that are to be discussed and as yesterday's figures show that we have lost £1,000 million in payments across the exchanges in fulfilling our part of Mark 1 of the economic and monetary union arrangements, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House ought to discuss this matter further before any further arrangements are made?

Mr. Carr: I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend would agree with the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman at the end of his question. All I can say at present is that I will consider his point. But in the few days available I cannot make a definite promise.

Mr. Ronald Bell: When does my right hon. Friend expect the next Session to be opened?

Mr. Carr: I cannot say that yet. It is impossible for me, as early as this, to forecast exactly how long the spillover will have to be.

Mr. John Mendelson: With regard to the unsatisfactory statement made by the Leader of the House about the date for debating the Adjournment Motion for the Recess, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that over the last year or so a very unsatisfactory principle seems to have been followed by the Government of being rather mysterious about the date for these debates? Will he now change his mind and put on this debate for Monday next? Does he realise that hon. Members from various areas affected by unemployment or hon. Members who have to raise issues of particular industries must not be deprived of their right to have a debate in the light of day and not late in the evening, so that their views may be properly taken notice of? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he does not change his mind on this he may have more trouble on his hands than he thinks possible now?

Mr. Carr: I regret the hon. Gentleman's tone about this matter. He is making a mountain out of a molehill. There is no mystery about this. It never has been the practice, I understand, to announce it long in advance. I considered having the debate on Monday, but I considered carefully the business of both days and the day when most hon. Members would wish, and would find it most convenient, to be present. We undertook some consultations about this matter and concluded that for most hon. Members—although I am sure not for all—Tuesday was probably the most convenient day.

Mr. Money: When my right hon. Friend bears in mind the business for October, will he take special account of the fact that both his predecessors and himself have given the House the assurance that they will give the House the opportunity for debating the television broadcasting of its proceedings?

Mr. Carr: Yes, indeed. I shall bear that in mind, and I hope that we shall be able to do something soon after returning.

Mr. Concannon: What are the Government's intentions with regard to the Robens Report on Safety and Health at


Work? This has great bearing on just about all the legislation that passes through the House, in particular the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which we are about to discuss.

Mr. Carr: I do not think that my memory is playing me false when I say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has already made a statement about that in which he stressed the urgency of this matter. I think that he said not only that consultations were being proceeded with immediately but that he had set a fairly sharp time limit for trying to reach a conclusion.

Mr. Kilfedder: When will the Northern Ireland draft planning order be laid before the House and debated? Will the Leader of the House ensure that hon. Members have an opportunity of moving Amendments to it?

Mr. Carr: I have to admit to my hon. Friend that I do not know the precise answer to his question at present. I shall have to consider it and let him know.

Mr. Dalyell: What about the promised statement on Vinter and the future of the nuclear power industry?

Mr. Carr: I hope that there will be a statement by my right hon. Friend before the Houses rises.

Mr. Crouch: Can we expect a statement next week on the decision on the runways at Maplin Sands for the third London airport? If there is to be a statement, will the matter be debated before it is finally proceeded with?

Mr. Carr: I can hold out considerable hope to my hon. Friend that there will be a statement before we rise. No doubt the question of a debate will be something to press following the statement by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ross: Is the Leader of the House aware that Scottish Members in all parts of the House are very anxious that we should have a debate on the reform of local government in Scotland before we get the Bill? Secondly, will he give an assurance that any proposal the Secretary of State for Scotland has, and any announcement of such proposal, in respect of reform of crofting tenure will be made by statement in the House?

Mr. Carr: May I consider both those matters? I knew that reform of local government in Scotland had been discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee, but I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says about wishing to debate it in the House. As to the matter of crofting tenure, as a poor Londoner I am not as well briefed in this matter as I should be, but I will consult my right hon. Friend.

CONFERENCE ON ELECTORAL LAW

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will rule that this is a point of order, because it arises out of the statement you made from the Chair yesterday afternoon. You then informed the House that you had been invited by the Prime Minister to preside over a conference, Mr. Speaker's Conference, to deal with matters affecting electoral law.
Whatever may have happened—and I do not think that anyone intended to be discourteous or in any way at fault—there must have been a slip-up through one or other channel, usual or unusual. But the statement was made yesterday, and the Opposition had been given no notice that it was to be made, nor had we had any chance for collective consideration of the proposed terms of reference. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) had been taken into consultation on the matter by the Home Secretary, and had expressed some opinions and conducted some consultation, but it was only at the end of last week that she heard what the proposed terms of reference were. We had not had time to consider them.
In those circumstances, I think that it would be unfortunate if the House were to feel itself committed by the statement of the terms of reference that was placed in your hands, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Government's initiative. While I personally would see no objection to arrangements going ahead for the work of the conference, which presumably will not be next week, or until our return, I hope that the exact wording of the terms of reference can be left in abeyance so that there can be discussions not merely through the usual channels


between the two major parties but in a way in which other hon. Members on both sides can express their views about the matter, and so that we can go forward to Mr. Speaker's Conference, under your chairmanship, with the highest possible measure of agreement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): I understand the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made his remarks, and his acknowledgement that my predecessor as Home Secretary had consultations with the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams). Certainly, it was not our wish that any apparent discourtesy should occur at the last moment. If I or any of my colleagues are in any way to blame, I should like to apologise. The proposals in the terms of reference contain not only all the matters we put forward but also all the additional matters which the hon. Lady put forward. All I can say on behalf of the Government is that—subject, of course, to your agreement, Mr. Speaker, and that of your conference—we should be very happy for any supplementary matters to be added to those terms of reference if that were thought desirable.

Mr. Speaker: Probably the fault is entirely mine, in that I made the statement too soon, without ascertaining that it had been agreed. I thought that it had been agreed between the two sides. Of course, I think that the terms of reference can be altered by agreement and I shall take into account what anyone may say about them. I was advised to make the statement as soon as possible so that consultations should take place about who might serve on the conference. It was thought desirable to do that while the House was still sitting. One promise I definitely make is that the conference will not meet next week.

Mr. Wilson: We had hoped that that was so, Mr. Speaker. For my part, and

speaking on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I see no objection to that kind of consultation going on. It is a question of the terms of reference. We need to consult a little further.
There is another matter, but not necessarily one for a ruling next week. Between now and the autumn consideration might be given to flashing the news of an important statement from the Chair around the House on the television screens, in the same way as other statements are now announced. Any tuppeny-ha'penny Minister of my party or any other party can be making a statement of more or less importance and have it announced, but some most important statements are made by the Chair and it might be convenient if the whole House had a chance to be given notice of them.

Mr. Speaker: Without agreeing with the "tuppeny ha'penny" part of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I think that there is great force in his suggestion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. C. Pannell: I had hoped to raise the following matter earlier, Mr. Speaker. In the announcement of business for next week by the Leader of the House we learnt that on the last day, on a very crowded occasion, there is to be a debate on the Select Committee's Report on how the next Speaker should be chosen. I do not believe that that was a matter that had to be hurried before the Summer Recess. Mr. Speaker celebrated his 68th birthday only last week, and should have another two Parliaments in front of him. I suggest that the debate could be put off until the next Session. We should give the office of the Speaker and the selection of the person to fill that office the degree of respect and leisurely appraisal that they deserve, and not be pushed along.

Mr. Speaker: On that agreeable note, I now ask the Clerk to proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order. I should like to raise at the very beginning a brief point about the selection of Amendments, Mr. Speaker.
We have all been trying to be co-operative in making this a brief and meaningful day. It might be useful if with new Clause 4 we took Amendment No. 55 as well as Amendment No. 56. I mention this before we reach that stage so that you may give the matter a little thought. New Clause 4 relates to the establishment of an advisory committee. Our main reason for tabling Amendment No. 55, to leave out Clause 22, is that the Clause means the reduction of advisory and consultative aspects by abolishing the agricultural executive committees.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will consider the matter between now and our approaching the new Clause, so that the two may be taken together. I understand the Government's difficulties, that their briefing and papers will be prepared as two separate items, but I believe that the difficulties can be overcome, since the new Clause and the Amendments are the positive and negative side of the same advisory cherry. I think that it would
speed up our proceedings to take them together.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): As I understand it, at present we are to take new Clause 4 and Amendment No. 56 together and to have a separate debate on Clause 22, which Amendment No. 55 would delete. But if it is the desire of the House to combine our consideration of new Clause 4, Amendment No. 56 and Amendment No. 55, I see no possible objection.

Mr. Buchan: I accept that. Amendment No. 56 is a procedural, technical Amendment, so basically we are agreeing on the matter.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If there were such a change in our order of business, I hope that would be possible to have a separate vote on Amendment No. 55, if so desired, when we reached that point.

Mr. Speaker: I am very careful not to announce beforehand that I shall allow a separate vote on Amendments taken with others. I am afraid that if I say "Yes", that might be thought to be a precedent for other similar applications. But I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion sympathetically.

New Clause 1

STANDARDS FOR HYGIENE AND CONSTRUCTION OF SLAUGHTERHOUSES

The Ministers shall within one year of the coming into force of this Act make and lay before Parliament regulations substituting for the Slaughterhouse (Hygiene) Regulations 1958 and amendments thereto standards for hygiene and construction of slaughterhouses which shall include—

(a) sufficiently large premises for the stabling of animals;
(b) slaughtering premises of such a size that work can be carried out satisfactorily, and provided with a special section for slaughtering pigs;
(c) premises for the emptying and cleansing of stomachs and intestines;
(d) premises for dressing of guts and tripe;
(e) separate premises for the storage of suet, and of hides, horn and hooves;
(f) locked premises reserved for stabling sick or suspect animals, slaughtering such animals, storing of condemned meat and of seized meat;
(g) sufficiently large refrigeration rooms;
(h) suitable quarters, which can be locked, for the exclusive use of the veterinary service,


including a room equipped for carrying out a trichinoscopic test, when such a test is compulsory;
(i) cloakrooms, wash basins and showers and water closets (the latter not opening directly on to the working premises) in which the wash basins must be provided with hot and cold water, with arrangements for cleansing and disinfecting the hands, and with hand-towels for use once only, and must be adjacent to the water closets;
(j) arrangements so that veterinary inspection can be carried out efficiently at any time;
(k) means of checking access to and from the slaughterhouse;
(l) an adequate partition between the clean and the polluted section;
(m) in premises where meat is handled:

flooring of waterproof material, easy to cleanse and disinfect and rot-proof, sloping slightly, with an appropriate system for running off liquids to drains fitted with traps and gratings;

smooth walls, covered up to a height of at least 3 metres with light, washable paint, and with rounded angles and corners;

(n) adequate ventilation and steam extraction in premises where meat is dressed and handled;
(o) in the same premises, adequate natural or artificial lighting, which does not distort colours;
(p) an adequate supply, under pressure, of drinking water only;
(q) arrangements for the provision of sufficient quantities of hot water;
(r) arrangements for draining of residual water in accordance with hygienic requirements;
(s) in working premises, adequate arrangements for cleansing and disinfecting hands and working equipment;
(t) arrangements so that, after slaughter, dressing can be carried out as far as possible on the suspended animal; where skinning is carried out on metal counters, they shall be of stainless materials and of a height such that the carcass does not touch the floor;
(u) a network of aerial rails for the subsequent handling of the meat;
(v) protection against insects and rodents;
(w) tools and working materials, in particular stainless containers easy to cleanse and disinfect;
(x) a special section for manure; and
(y) space and arrangements for cleansing and disinfecting vehicles.—[Mr. Alfred Morris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With the new Clause we are to consider Amendment No. 14, in Clause 6, page 6, line 44, after 'premises', insert:
'and also comply with the following conditions:
Premises for the cutting up of meat, separated from other premises by walls;
Sufficiently large refrigeration rooms;
Suitable quarters, which can be locked, for the exclusive use of the veterinary service;
Cloakrooms, wash-basins and showers, and water closets, the latter not opening directly onto the working precises; the wash-basins shall be provided with hot and cold water, arrangements for cleansing and disinfecting the hands, and with towels for use once only; the wash-basins must be adjacent to the water-closets;
In the butchery premises:
flooring of waterproof material, easy to cleanse and disinfect, and rot-proof, sloping slightly and with an appropriate system for funning off liquids to drains fitted with traps and gratings;
smooth walls, covered up to a height of at least three metres, with light, washable paint, and with rounded angles and corners;
Cooling arrangements in the butchery premises to keep meat permanently at an internal temperature lower than or equal to +7°C;
Adequate ventilation in the butchery premises;
In the same premises, adequate natural or artificial lighting, which does not distort colours;
An adequate supply, under pressure of drinking water only;
Arrangements for provision of sufficient quantities of hot water;
Arrangements for draining off residual water, in accordance with hygienic requirements;
In butchery premises, adequate provision for cleansing and disinfecting hands and working equipment;
Protection against insects and rodents;
Working equipment and tools, in particular fixed butchers' blocks, receptacles, conveyor belts and saws, of stainless material, easy to cleanse and disinfect.'
and Amendment No. 37, in page 7, line 29, at end insert:
(5) Before the coming into effect of any of the foregoing provisions of this section the Ministers shall consult on questions of hygiene with the heads of preventive medicine of all the medical faculties.

Mr. Morris: These are very important Amendments. As my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have said in Standing


Committee, the Government are in a contradictory position. While they passionately advocate entry to the European Economic Community, they seem strangely reluctant to come to terms with its attitudes in this field. At present, two different standards are applied to slaughterhouses in this country. One standard is for meat produced for the home market and the other is a much higher standard for meat intended for the European export market. Of some 2,000 slaughterhouses, only about 40 are approved for the export of meat to the EEC countries. Less than 30 are approved for export to West Germany, where the highest standards apply.
It is highly significant that, although local authorities operate only around 100 slaughterhouses, approximately 30 per cent. of them are approved for the export trade to West Germany. The replacement of some of the public abattoirs by private slaughterhouses, which the Ministry appears to expect because of the change in licensing policy, could reduce the number of establishments which are up to export standard. We were entitled to expect that any change in Government policy would be designed to bring standards up to the export slaughterhouse level and not to reduce the number of slaughterhouses already providing the higher standards. There is no obvious reason why the dual standard, a lower standard for meat for home consumption and a higher one for meat exports, should be retained. Moreover, there can be no reason why the situation should be deliberately worsened by Government legislation.
It is generally acknowledged by all hon. and right hon. Members that the new local authority abattoirs are among the best in the country. They were built and operate to the highest standards in accordance with local authority concern and responsibility for the health of their communities. Against this, there is no dispute that many private slaughterhouses comply only with the lowest standards acceptable under the regulations. The closure of high-standard public abattoirs and their replacement by private slaughterhouses of the minimum standard would be a retrograde step.
There is no evidence that any benefits will accrue to the community because of the change in licensing policy. There is

every reason to believe that such a policy woud be detrimental to the public interest as standards are likely to fall. The elimination of dual standards, a lower one for home consumption and a higher one for export, will be further delayed. The cost of enforcing the regulations will increase with the greater number of private slaughterhouses and the closure of public slaughterhouses because of the pressure of inequitable competition. Consequently, debt charges will have to be paid out of rates for many years with no corresponding benefit.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is making an extraordinary statement. He must know that there have been frequent inquiries into slaughterhouses, which we have all read. We all know the background. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why he is saying that the standards of private slaughterhouses will be lower? That is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman has not substantiated his case in any way. It is mischievous of him to make such a suggestion.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman was not on the Standing Committee.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: No, but I have read it.

Mr. Morris: We debated this matter at length in Committee. I shall, as my speech proceeds, try to show the hon. Gentleman how slaughtering standards will be placed at risk.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Nonsense.

Mr. Morris: If we fail to sustain our argument in favour of new Clause 1 and the related Amendments, standards will be placed at serious risk. The hon. Gentleman knows that to be the case.

Mr. John Mackie: Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) realises that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr Scott-Hopkins) was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Slaughterhouses Act was brought in to modernise slaughterhouses and reduce the number of slaughterhouses from the high number to which they had proliferated, which had created bad slaughterhouses.

Mr. Morris: I shall not get involved in this argument between former Ministers at Whitehall Place. I hope to show the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) that we agree much more with the policy which he was pursuing at the Ministry than with that now pursued by his right hon. and hon. Friends. The new abattoirs were designed on the strength of the Government policy of restricting the licensing of new slaughterhouses. It could never have been evisaged when these abattoirs were being planned that a complete reversal in policy, from restriction according to need to freedom irrespective of need, could ever take place.
Involved in this debate are important questions of hygiene. If we look at the standards which are required in the European Economic Community, we find that they are deeply concerned to avoid threats to public health. Under the heading "Inspection of Staff", the EEC directive states:
Every person working in contact with meat must have a medical examination at least once a year to check whether he is a carrier of any diseases likely to be passed on to the meat".
There is no such requirement in the British regulations. When medical examinations were introduced at the Manchester abattoir, prior to obtaining approval for the export trade, two men were found to be carriers and had to be taken off meat handling. This is a very serious matter. Without the examination, these men could have continued to handle meat for domestic consumption. I hope that the Minister will tell the House how many of the private slaughterhouses have medical examination requirements.
It is important to emphasise the interest of the consumer in this debate. Why should the British housewife accept lower standards than the French or West German housewife? What possible argument can there be against adjusting British standards to those of the European Economic Community? We have always been prepared to praise what is good in the EEC and to question and criticise what we think is bad. We are asking the Government to be consistent. I know that Ministers feel that there should be more slaughtering in the producer areas and less in the consumer areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) has pointed out, the argument

might be valid if one were thinking of driving cattle from the vastness of the American prairies to the Chicago meat processing yards. But the argument does not stand up when one is talking of moving livestock from Chorley to Manchester. The right hon. Gentleman really must be consistent. As this is the first debate of the day, we hope that he will make a constructive response to the arguments we have adduced in favour of new Clause 1 and the related Amendments. As he knows, by 1976 we shall have to come up to EEC standards for poultry slaughtering. Red meat is much more important. Why cannot we say that we are prepared to lift our standards to the export level?
4.30 p.m.
The bringing of British slaughterhouses up to the higher standards in the directive is clearly an important and worthwhile step achievable within a limited period. This should have had a higher place in the Government's priorities than the proposed new legislation which, if enacted, may result in a deterioration of standards by compelling local authorities to close down or curtail their abattoir operations. I argued in Committee that Manchester's first class public abattoir was now at risk. What possible justification can there be for the threat to this and other first-class abattoirs in the public sector? The Minister's policy is one of free-for-all. He seems unconcerned about whether we reduced the public sector, notwithstanding the very high standards of many of its abattoirs.
There was talk in Committee of allowing local authorities to increase their charges. As far as I am aware, local authorities do not wish to increase their charges. They are genuinely concerned, as the Government only pretend to be, about the battle against inflation. A great burden is being carried by the ratepayers which may well increase as a consequence of the Government's policy.
I ask the Minister to take very seriously the point I have made about carriers of food poisoning in the employment of abattoirs in this country. Two men had to be removed from their work in the Manchester abattoir. As far as I know, the Minister can give no assurance whatever that carriers of food poisoning are not employed in some of the abattoirs


of this country. This is a further reason for my having emphasised that this is very much a consumer's debate. We are arguing the public interest against a policy which seeks to serve only private interests.
On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I again ask the Minister to reply constructively to our submission in favour of new Clause 1 and the related Amendments.

Mr. Thomas Torney: I am very sorry that the Government do not seem to learn by their mistakes and that there appears to be scant regard for the interests not only of consumers but of workers in slaughterhouses.
The Government have introduced an extremely controversial Clause dealing with slaughterhouses. I wonder how many people realise that there are different standards for the killing of cattle for human consumption. Prior to this Bill there were different standards for what people would buy in the butchers' shops and for what we were prepared to export. In other words, people overseas demand that our slaughterhouses should be so organised that they give a greater degree of protection to the meat which we export to Europe than to the meat which people buy in butchers' shops in this country. Yet the Government have chosen to ignore this factor.
Those of us who have had to sit through the hours of debate on the European Communities Bill know that many laws in this country will have to be changed by virtue of our entry. Some of them appertain to this Bill. Clause 6 is an absolute nonsense. We had the nonsense of discussing in one room in the Committee corridor alterations in the law relating to killing cattle for human consumption, and in another room the Common Market, which could well do something different, was being discussed.
Moreover, to add insult to injury, when we discussed Clause 6 in Committee, we were not allowed by the Chairman to raise the points with which today's new Clause 1 deals. We were not allowed by the Chairman to discuss items affecting the Common Market.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order. I understand that the proceedings in Committee and the rulings of the

Chairman there are not relevant to the Report stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Passing references to many things are allowed, but they should not be dwelt on.

Mr. Torney: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall make only a passing reference. It is dangerous for us to ignore the question of entry to the Common Market and how it will affect the slaughter of cattle for human consumption, but at one time we were not allowed to discuss it in Committee. Only much later did the Chairman alter his ruling and allow us to introduce matters appertaining to the Common Market. It is all the more deplorable that we have to curb our debate in this way, because we were promised by the Chairman of the Standing Committee that we should be allowed greater time to debate this matter on Report. I am thankful that the Chair has seen fit at least to select new Clause 1 for discussion.
For the protection of the consumer it is vital that we have slaughterhouses to standards which are at least as high as those on the Continent. However, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) did not make clear concerns the workers in the industry. I have to declare an interest here since I am sponsored by the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, which is the main trade union responsible for the organisation of slaughterhouse workers. That union deplores the fact that this Bill proposes to weaken the control of local authorities over slaughtering. As my hon. Friend said, new Clause 1 seeks to bring our slaughterhouses up to the required standard of those in Common Market countries. They are standards which the Minister will have to adopt sooner or later once we are in the Common Market. It is difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman will not accept them today.
My trade union which represents the workers in the industry agrees with the present system of local authority slaughtering. It is ludicrous now to propose a system which will encourage in all parts of the country the springing up of small, inadequately staffed and poorly organised slaughterhouses which will be a danger to the health of the people and


result in far worse conditions for those working in them.
There is another aspect, and that is sanitary control. Anyone who knows even a little about slaughterhouses knows that it is not easy to secure a sufficient number of sanitary inspectors of meat. Local authorities have great difficulty. There is a shortage of this kind of skilled person—

Mr. Deakins: They are not all that skilled.

Mr. Torney: When we switch to the method envisaged in the Bill and have slaughterhouses possibly at the point of production rather than at the point of distribution, many more slaughterhouses will be spread over a much wider area, some of them in rural districts, and they will be an added weight for the local authorities' inspectors of meat. In some places, the situation is reaching breaking point already. If the Minister requires inspectors to go further afield to many more slaughterhouses, the chances of having proper inspection of the meat that we are to eat will be severely reduced, and greater stress will be placed on local authorities as a result.
4.45 p.m.
In addition to the workers in the industry not wishing to have this change, it is opposed by the local authorities. The great mass of local authorities provide up-to-date slaughtering methods. Most, though not all, have slaughterhouses which come up to the Continental standard which is required by new Clause 1. In effect, that is the Common Market requirement.
Certain sections of the medical profession are opposed to the change, and I am glad to see that an Amendment has been tabled which draws attention to this point. As a result of my small interest in the subject in the Standing Committee, I have had letters from various associations connected with the medical profession. They all say that we are not making this protest strong enough, loud enough and wide-ranging enough. In other words the doctors, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, are worried that this change will mean a lowering of our health standards. For all these sound and concrete reasons, even at this late

stage the Minister should postpone any further dealing with the Clause until the Common Market regulations have come fully into effect.
I should very much like to be able to speak for as long as I did in Committee. Already the Whips are looking at me indicating that there is not much time for this debate. However, I want to make this final point.
There has been far too little consideration, examination and consultation with those who will be affected by the proposed change in the law covering slaughterhouses. I am sure that the Minister knows that prior to the passing of the 1958 Act dealing with slaughterhouses there was an interdepartmental committee of inquiry and that prior to the passing of the 1967 Act there was the well-known Verdon-Smith Inquiry. I should like to have read the report of that inquiry, but there is not sufficient time and it is too lengthy. I should like to have read parts of it. Unfortunately, there is not even time for that. I assume that the Minister has read it or that perhaps he remembers the points that I made about it in Committee—

Mr. Prior: I do.

Mr. Torney: In any event, there should have been more consultation. The local authorities have told me that they were not properly consulted. I am sure that the Minister will not challenge that this time. I think that he appreciates that I was correct when I said it in Committee. My own trade union would like to have been consulted a great deal more. Without prejudice to this change in the legislation, could not the Minister put it back a little with a view to consulting more and giving it at least the same sort of study as was carried out prior to the 1958 and 1967 Acts, possibly appointing a Select Committee to do the job?
I am convinced that some kind of inquiry of this nature is necessary, bearing in mind all that is said in new Clause 1 which in effect is a restatement of Common Market policy. After many months and long hours of debate in the course of which we were told that we had to accept Common Market policies, the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that this House should accept a Bill which is contrary to one aspect of those policies.


If it were other aspects of Common Market policy, I should be very happy. However, this is one of the few aspects of that policy which lay down more stringent regulations for the well being of workers and the health of consumers and which are better than we have at present. I do not understand the logic of the Government introducing a Bill containing a provision like this after all they have said about the urgency and advantages of our joining the Common Market.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Having listened to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) I judge myself fortunate not to have been a member of the Standing Committee; because, as the hon. Gentleman fairly acknowledged, he did not spare either himself or the Committee in expressing his views, nor did he spare the House this evening.
The hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) are labouring under two misapprehensions. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe opposes Clause 6 because, understandably, he is obsessed with the position of Manchester Corporation's slaughterhouse. The worry which existed in earlier years about this slaughterhouse still continues.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in addition to Manchester, other major local authorities are affected?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the place he knows and understands best—Manchester slaughterhouse, which has been one of the best municipal slaughterhouses. However, the fact that it loses about £1,000 a week must be borne in mind.
Both hon. Members asserted that, if the proposals contained in Clause 6 are adopted, standards will decline progressively and there will be a proliferation of small slaughterhouses. When my right hon. Friend introduced the Bill, I, because of my previous connection with slaughterhouse policy, had misgivings about whether this was the right thing to do. However, having examined the figures and studied carefully the debates in Standing Committee and having listened to the Second Reading debate, I have concluded that what was right in

the 1950s and partially right in the 1960s is no longer right in the 1970s.
It is essential to allow private slaughterhouses to operate. There will not be a sudden increase in the number of slaughterhouses. Since 1962 there has been a steady decrease. The Bill for which I had some responsibility in 1963 was designed to reduce the number of 4,700 to a more amenable figure. The number in fact reduced to about 1,500 to 1,700.
When Clause 6 begins to be operated there will not be a sudden upsurge in small, backward, unhygienic, badly run slaughterhouses. It is not practical economics for private enterprise to put money into such a set-up. Those in the industry are hard-headed.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe pertinently asked what is to be done with municipal slaughterhouses on which a great deal of ratepayers' money has been spent and where a great deal of loan money has been used. In Committee my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that the alternatives are stark. Either a monopoly is created and we have only municipal slaughterhouses and we subsidise them by ratepayers' or taxpayers' money, or municipal slaughterhouses must so arrange their charges that they can compete and become viable. If they cannot do that, they must close, and the sooner the better. If there is a demand for something different, as there will be in certain areas and as the pattern of slaughtering changes and takes place more at the point of processing, the change will take place as economic circumstances dictate and demand will be matched by supply.
Both hon. Members made great play about the difference between our standards of hygiene and those of the Common Market. Over the past few years I have had much to do with Common Market standards of slaughtering. A few years ago we had just over 20 slaughterhouses which came up to Common Market standards. But that number has increased until now the difference between standards here and those in Europe is not all that great. Although they may not come within the letter of the law as operated in Europe, the standards of many of our slaughterhouses are as good as those required in Europe. It is only a question of certain processes being gone


through. There will be no difficulty about standards being met and after 1st January, 1973, when we join the Common Market this will not present a problem in either the public or the private sector.
I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will persevere. There is bound to be anxiety among municipally-owned slaughterhouses, but they must put their house in order and become viable or take the obvious alternative course. I believe that the result of what my right hon. Friend is doing will be, with the change in the pattern of processing, not an increase in the number of small slaughterhouses, but an improved and better slaughtering service for small farmers.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: My principal reason for supporting the new Clause is that I am influenced by its wording. It is a catalogue of the standards of public hygiene which all reasonable people would expect to be introduced in British abattoirs. There is already an excess of slaughterhouses in Britain. What we are short of is good slaughtering facilities.
If we had the standards laid down in new Clause 1 we would be acting in the interests of the British housewife and those who eat meat in this country. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) who kindly referred to my constituency interest in this issue of public abattoirs. He will know from his period of ministerial office that in 1961 Manchester Corporation built in my constituency a new public slaughterhouse to bring public slaughtering facilities in Manchester up to the standards laid down in the new Clause. The Corporation built this abattoir at a cost of £4,160,000. At the beginning of this year Manchester ratepayers were carrying a financial burden running at the rate of £1,000 a day for the operation of this public abattoir.
Nearly £400,000 a year is carried by the Manchester ratepayers in providing the standard of public hygiene and slaughtering facilities which the community has a right to expect. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) comments that it is a tax on the health of

the community. I might add in parenthesis that it is not only the animals that have been gentaly led to the slaughter! I would have welcomed the Minister including some positive proposal in this Bill aimed at relieving Manchester ratepayers of the financial burden which they are obliged to carry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe drew attention to what he termed dual standards of slaughtering facilities as applied to this country and the European Community. It is, in fact, a tripartite system of standards because not only are there different standards for this country and Europe but there are also further, different standards applying to slaughtering facilities where the meat is destined for the United States. Why should the British housewife have standards lower than the West German housewife or the American housewife? How can it be justified?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House where our standards are lower than those of Europe? What is he getting at?

Mr. Morris: Perhaps I ought to clarify the position. The Manchester abattoir is one of about 30 abattoirs recognised for the export of meat to the European Communities. There are only four abattoirs in the country recognised as being able to handle meat which is to be exported to the United States.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Where do we fall down?

Mr. Morris: It is not a question of where we fall down on any particular point; it is a matter of the comprehensive facilities available at public abattoirs, provided by municipalities. What I find disturbing is that above new Clause 1 we do not find the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We were all encouraged to see his elevation from the back benches to the Government Front Bench. However in the process we do not appear to be dealing with the same man. The hon. Member who has now ministerial responsibility for the Bill said on Second Reading, on precisely the point covered in New Clause 1,
I strongly believe that slaughterhouses should be up to export standard. This will be


costly, but the consumer has every right to have a high standard of hygiene, which is a matter of paramount importance.
One can almost see him bashing the Despatch Box as he uttered those words.

Mr. Buchan: They did not let him near it then.

Mr. Morris: He went on:
I know that in my part of the country the slaughterhouses are up to standard, but I must also point out that only 60 out of the 2,000 slaughterhouses in this country are up to standard compared with those in the Community. This shows what a long way we are behind our future partners".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 82.]
I would not suggest for a moment that this contradiction has anything to do with the position from which he spoke on 17th January and the honoured position which he now holds. But they are illogical points of view. I share the Minister's views of 17th January.

Mr. Torney: Would my hon Friend not agree that if the difference between our slaughtering laws and the slaughtering laws of the Common Market are as minimal as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) seems to think, there should be no difficulty in the Government accepting this new Clause?

Mr. Morris: That is a perfectly valid point. The Government have been far too complacent on this question of standards of hygiene in public slaughterhouses. I say to them bluntly that they have an obligation to the community at large with these standards. No Government can afford to be complacent where the health of the community is at risk.

Mr. Prior: I would agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) that no Government can afford to be complacent in what is an extremely important matter. I can assure the hon. Member that the Government are not complacent and are seeking the whole time to improve slaughterhouses as soon as possible. We want to see this pushed on rapidly. It is for the convenience of the House as a whole if we do not have long and laboured debates on each item today. In this respect I am grateful to hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for keeping their remarks to a reasonable length. I do not want to criticise the hon. Member for Bradford,

South (Mr. Torney). We found him an agreeable companion in Committee, and, although we did not always agree with him, we thought that he spoke with very good humour at all times.
If I may start by slightly twisting the tails of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is interesting to note that, whereas a good many of them could see no good in anything which the Common Market did a few weeks ago, they are now tabling this Clause which broadly lays down standards prescribed for slaughterhouses in the EEC. Obviously, they must see some good in what goes on there.
I would make it absolutely plain that the directive on which the new Clause is based relates only to meat involved in intra-Community trade and not internal trade. So when the hon. Member for Openshaw asks why it is that British housewives have worse conditions than German or French housewives he is not stating the case. It will be generally accepted that the standards of hygiene in our slaughterhouses are considerably higher than those on the Continent at the moment. To the extent that we want to participate in intra-Community trade it is necessary for our traders to ensure that meat comes from slaughterhouses which meet the EEC requirements. There is nothing new about this, because we already have to meet those requirements for meat which is exported to EEC countries, and we do so through our export-approved slaughterhouses. It is true that these slaughterhouses are limited in number, but as opportunities for exporting develop we believe that some slaughterhouse owners will find it worth their while to bring their slaughterhouses into line with the EEC requirements. As our association with the EEC becomes closer it will be more important that we should not be tied to a rigid pattern of slaughterhouse development but that our arrangements should be flexible so that what is needed can be provided where it is needed.
Without getting involved in all the arguments we had in Committee I must explain that we are trying to allow the industry to develop in a pragmatic way without putting any one section of it into a privileged position. That seems to me to be a reasonable attitude to adopt. The hon. Members for Manchester, Openshaw and Manchester,


Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) argued that the best slaughterhouses were local authority slaughterhouses. They argued that therefore we would need them for intra-Community trade and we should not prejudice their position.
I do not accept that the Government's proposals in the Bill will prejudice the position of local authority slaughterhouses. But apart from that let us examine the facts. Thirty-eight slaughterhouses in England and Wales are approved for export purposes, of which 25 are private and 13 are public. Therefore, 13 out of 110 public slaughterhouses are approved for the export of meat. Five of those are operated by private concerns, so that there are eight municipal slaughterhouses up to the required standard out of a total of 110. If we put the worst possible construction on the matter and assume that all these local authority slaughterhouses will cease operations entirely, eight out of 38 approved slaughterhouses would cease to operate and that eight out of 110 municipal slaughterhouses would find themselves out of business.

Mr. Deakins: Are not the Minister's figures just a little misleading because, generally speaking, the local authority slaughterhouses, particularly those built in the last 20 years, have a very much larger capacity and throughput than private slaughterhouses. Therefore, although it is all very well to say that only eight might be forced to close down for the export trade, those eight may handle 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the total export trade.

Mr. Prior: The percentage of meat slaughtered at municipal slaughterhouses is about 25 per cent. of the total meat slaughtered in this country. I do not have the precise figures of meat going for export which is slaughtered at municipal establishments as against those in the private sector. But it cannot be argued that any diminution of local authority slaughterhouses would prejudice the export of meat. We have to make sure that we are in the best position to take advantage of opportunities in the Community as they develop. There is nothing incompatible in the removal of ministerial approval for the granting of new licences and the fact that we shall

shortly become a member of the EEC. On the contrary I believe that the Government's proposals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said, will considerably help to provide the flexibility we shall need for future developments.
5.15 p.m.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the losses of some of the municipal slaughterhouses, including Manchester. He spoke about £1,000 a week, but the figure is much nearer to £1,000 a day, or more. As I understand, it is about £400,000 a year. No steps we can take would prevent that from continuing, and we must take a broad look at the future and hope that other municipalities will perhaps learn from the experience of Manchester and other municipal authorities and leave this to private enterprise, which will establish a slaughterhouse only where it thinks it can make it pay.
The question was raised about the health of workers in slaughterhouses. This is an important point. Where slaughterhouses are up to export standard all employees have to be medically examined once a year. But under the regulations of the Food and Drugs Act, 1958, paragraph 34, which deals with personal hygiene and conduct, says:
as soon as any person engaged in or about any slaughterhouse in the handling of meat or the handling of blood intended for human consumption becomes aware that he is suffering from, or is a carrier of"—
a number of diseases including typhoid fever or any—
staphylococcal infection likely to cause food poisoning, he shall forthwith give notice of the fact to the occupier or person in charge of the slaughterhouse and such occupier or person in charge … shall immediately after receipt of the notice notify the medical officer of health of the district in which the slaughterhouse is situated to the same effect.
This is a help, and, of course, even a yearly medical inspection does not cover an illness or infection picked up within the year. It is important that the paragraph relating to personal hygiene in slaughterhouses is carried out regardless of the yearly medical health check.
No one is trying to be dogmatic about this. We debated it at great lenth in Committee and there is a division of opinion between the two sides. I believe that our proposals are a practical answer to the problems. I hope that with this


further explanation, the House will allow us to get on.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones (Carmarthen): I raised the question of the problems of the rural areas in Committee. The Minister of State said that he understood the problems I was trying to convey to the Committee. He said:
I must add that I have been impressed by the point made … about possible difficulties in which rural areas might find themselves, and the Government see the case for a transitional period during which both the public and the private sector of the industry can reassess future requirements in the light of the new policy. We shall, therefore, consider putting down an Amendment on Report postponing both the removal of control over licensing and the removal of obligation on local authorities to ensure adequate slaughtering facilities in their districts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 15th February, 1972; c. 294.]

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman will find that we met that point at the end of the Committee stage by putting in the date of 1st January, 1974. This will give time for any difficulties, which we do not envisage but which were envisaged by the hon. Gentleman, to be dealt with.

Mr. Fred Peart: I welcome the Minister's view that we should not have the long debates we had in Committee, but those debates were well worth while, despite what has been said by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) made a powerful case in Committee, and we expected the Minister to be converted. However, he has not been.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) has put succinctly the case for the new Clause and the Amendments associated with it. He rightly argued for the setting up of improved facilities to enable us to participate in the export market and to get rid of the dualism in our system. This was the view of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), who is now a Minister. No doubt he will use his influence to convert the Department to his point of view—until there is a change, and then there will be a reversal of policy.
The Minister said that there is a clear division between the two sides of the House on this matter. That was also apparent in Committee. We defend our

public abattoirs and slaughterhouses. My hon. Friends represent large cities like Manchester, Bradford and Glasgow, where local pride has enabled the citizens to build important public abattoirs which are vital to our meat industry. We pay tribute to those local authorities.
That is not to decry private slaughterhouses. The Minister is right in his percentages. There are varying degrees of ownership, and inevitably this will be so. We are worried in case the Minister's action results in a proliferation which would in turn affect public slaughterhouse capacity, and that has been argued time and again. We are right to press the point about standards.
The Minister has chided the Opposition for their stand on entry into the European Economic Community, but this has nothing to do with entry into the EEC. We can export meat products to the Community without being in it. I will not argue about the European Community Communities Bill. After all, I like French wine better than British wine, but that does not mean that I like the Community's agricultural policy, Mr. Pompidou's policy or our Prime Minister's policy. It is because we are seeking to export to different parts of the world that we want to improve standards. If there are improved facilities in the Community, I hope that we shall surpass them. I agree that we should not exaggerate this, and here I am near to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West.
The National Farmers Union has ex-expressed concern about the proposal in a memorandum, and the local authorities association has stated its case repeatedly. I should like to develop a major argument about other matters which affect our public abattoirs. For example, the day will come when we shall have to take a new look at the meat inspection service operating in our abattoirs, whether private or local.
I believe in a State veterinary service. We have a State veterinary service, and I am certain that one day it must take control over meat inspection. I am not denigrating the work done by public health inspectors and meat inspectors. They are dedicated people, and they do the work well, but ultimately we must have inspection by veterinary surgeons,


or at least the administration must be in the charge of the State veterinary service, which will be apart from the local authority organisation and responsible to the Government and the Ministry. This happens in other countries, even in Western Europe.
We believe that we have made out our case in Committee and today. My hon. Friends have put the case fairly and constructively. We do not regard this as a party issue and we hope that there will be some give. That is why I argued on Second Reading and in Committee that before any action is taken by the Government there should be another inquiry.
There was an interdepartmental inquiry which led to legislation. There was the Verdon-Smith inquiry, which led to the setting up of the Livestock Commission. Even the Minister of State, who was Parliamentary Secretary when the Bill was first introduced, argued that the meat industry in the last 13 years has changed considerably. It is foolish for a Government to rush in when such changes are taking place. I can understand the argument about improving our public abattoirs and our standards because of entry into the EEC and the danger to our export trade, but to rush in quickly

when the meat industry as a whole is changing and when there are great arguments about marketing and distribution is unwise. It would be proper for the Government to have a major inquiry. I am not suggesting that such an inquiry should be like the Verdon-Smith Inquiry, but there should be an interdepartmental inquiry. It might have been proper for a Select Committee of the House to look into the matter, but I would prefer an interdepartmental inquiry which would report to the Minister.

The Minister has not been pragmatic, as he says he is. He is good-natured enough but he has been dogmatic and has not budged. He has made a small concession to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones), but otherwise he has been dogmatic. I have seen minutes of discussions which have taken place with the Department from which I come to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman has been not pragmatic but doctrinal. For these reasons we are bound to register our protest by dividing the House.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 123.

Division No. 333]
AYES
[5.30 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sulton)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Padley, Walter


Atkinson, Norman
John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Barry (Flint E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross. Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Concannon, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kaufman, Gerald
silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Silverman, Julius


Cronin, John
Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Latham, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lawson, George
steel, David


Deakins, Eric
Leonard, Dick
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lestor, Miss Joan
Strang, Gavin


Dormand, J. D.
Lipton, Marcus
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunn, James A.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Edelman, Maurice
Mackie, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Torney, Tom


Ewing, Harry
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Faulds, Andrew
Mendelson, John
Urwin, T. W.


Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Eric G.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Millan, Bruce
Wallace, George


Foley, Maurice
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Weitzman, David


Foot, Michael
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wellbeloved, James


Gilbert, Dr. John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Golding, John
Moyle, Roland



Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Halloran, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Horam, John
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas





NOES


Adley, Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Hayhoe, Barney
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Benyon, W.
Hiley, Joseph
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Body, Richard
Holland, Philip
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hornby, Richard
Raison, Timothy


Bowden, Andrew
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Redmond, Robert


Bray, Ronald
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Brewis, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Iremonger, T. L.
Rost, Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
James, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Channon, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chapman, Sydney
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
shelton, William (Clapham)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kilfedder, James
Simeons Charles


Churchill, W. S.
Kimball, Marcus
Soref, Harold


clegg, Walter
Kinsey, J. R.
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Knox, David
stanbrook, Ivor


Cormack, Patrick
Lamont, Norman
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sutcliffe, John


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)



Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dixon, Piers
Luce R. N.
Tebbit, Norman


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
McCrindle, R. A.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Drayson, G. B.
McLaren, Martin
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mather, Carol
Tugendhat, Christopher


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Angus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wall, Patrick


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Warren, Kenneth


Fortescue, Tim
Moate Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Fowler, Norman
Molyneaux James
White Roger (Gravesend)


Fry, Peter
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Wilkinson, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Morrison Charles
Winterton, Nicholas


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Murton Oscar
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Green, Alan
Neave, Airey
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Grieve, Percy
Normanton Tom



Gummer, Selwyn
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gurden, Harold
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Kenneth Clarke and


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Osborn, John
Mr. Marcus Fox.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

DEPLOYMENT OF INSPECTORS APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE AGRICUL- TURE (SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE PROVISIONS) ACT 1956, AND SEC- TION 3 OF THE AGRICULTURE (POISONOUS SUBSTANCES) ACT 1952

In section 10(3) of the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act 1956, for the words 'An inspector shall have power to do' there shall be substituted 'The duties of an inspector appointed under this section shall be confined to', and in section 3(3) of the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act 1952 for the words 'An inspector appointed under this Act shall have power to do' shall be substituted 'The duties of an inspector appointed under this section shall be confined to.'.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I beg to move—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Con-

cannon) cannot move that the Clause be read a Second time since his name is not appended to the names which appear on the Amendment Paper.

Mr. Buchan: I formally beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient also to deal with Amendment No. 53, in the Title, line 11, leave out 'increase the penalties under' and insert 'amend'.

Mr. Concannon: We do not wish to prolong this debate. In the time which has elapsed between Committee and Report there have been many to-ings and fro-ings between the usual channels, and also in the meantime we have received the Report by the Robens Committee on Safety and Health at Work. If the Minister could give an indication that the principles lying behind the new Clause and Amendment No. 53 will be contained in future legislation or will be considered in future discussions, I think perhaps we


might be prevailed upon to withdraw the new Clause and Amendment No. 53 which goes with it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Mills): In moving the Clause so quickly hon. Members opposite have given us time to say a few things about farm safety, a subject about which we all feel strongly. I well remember the speech made by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) in Committee; he obviously knows a considerable amount about safety matters in general, and certainly seems to know something about farm safety, too.
I must point out that the Clause as drafted could prove something of a boomerang. Far from securing a separate safety inspectorate, it might deprive inspectors, however organised, of the enforcement powers which they need. I know that neither side of the House seeks to bring about such a situation. For that reason alone I shall seek to urge hon. Members opposite to withdraw the Clause.
Several arguments have been put forward over the past weeks and months for a separate inspectorate. However, I do not think there is a case for it. If we look at the statistics we see that the non-fatal figure dropped from 14,000 in
1958–59 to fewer than 7,000 last year. On that front there is some improvement, despite the fact that there is a great increase in mechanisation and a decline in the number of farm workers. The fatality figures show a rather different picture. The figure is still about 100 a year, so there is no room for complacency. I know only too well, coming from the South-West, where there are hills and difficult fields to deal with, that the number of accidents is a serious and sad business.
Regarding prosecutions, there is nothing in the figures to warrant criticism of the Agricultural Departments' stewardship of their farm safety responsibilities under successive Administrations. There were 207 successful prosecutions for contraventions of the regulations in 1971. So enforcement standards are not being, and will not be, relaxed.
This brings me to the key implication of the Clause: that safety would be en-

hanced if we had a full-time inspectorate engaged exclusively on safety enforcement. Like the previous Administration, I question this view.
As the House probably knows, we have 40 full-time safety specialists and about 400 inspectors who are the general purpose field officers engaged for about a third of their time on safety duties for which they have been specially trained. They are not amateurs; they are trained in this sphere. The 12 wages and safety inspectors in Scotland, nine of whom are in the field, similarly spend about a third of their time on farm safety matters.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that the interests of farm safety would be better served by a separate safety inspectorate. Without prejudice to any action which may be taken on the recently published Robens Report on Safety and Health at Work, it is only right that I should put forward the other side of the argument.
First, if we had these specialists there would be fewer safety inspectors. I do not think that would be a good thing, realising that agriculture is so widely spread that it would be difficult if there were fewer safety inspectors. In these circumstances relations with farmers and workers, which are very important, would be more formal and the special relationship and spirit of co-operation which has grown up between most farmers and their local inspectors could be destroyed.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend address himself to the point that financial support, albeit minimal, is being withdrawn from the voluntary advisory committees? Is he aware that there is a great deal of unhappiness that that support has been withdrawn? Will he assure the House and the people concerned that the Government still support the good voluntary work that is done?

Mr. Mills: I have heard about this problem. We have withdrawn only secretarial assistance. Our safety inspectors and the committees are still there, and we are watching what is happening under the new arrangements.
I hope that this special relationship which has been built up between the farmers and the inspectors will never be destroyed. I know how important it is. These people know the farms. They go on to the farms to look at other things


and can point out to a farmer in a pleasant way that something is wrong with his tractor or power take-off shaft or something like that. Therefore, it would be unfortunate if this relationship were destroyed.
Some farms which do not have regular workers are largely outside the scope of the regulations. These farms are by no means immune from accidents. The present organisation gives our field officers an opportunity to advise on safety when visiting these farms for other purposes.
I turn now to the Robens Report and its possible effects. It is interesting to see that the Committee says:
As we have seen, inspection of provisions for the safety and health of workers in agriculture presents problems of organisation arising from the fact that farming units are small, numerous and very widely scattered.
This means it is entirely different from a factory or anything else, and we must accept that.
We think that the new Authority should be responsible for administering farm safety legislation and that all full time agricultural safety personnel should be brought within the unified inspectorate. The general run of safety supervision visits to farms should continue to be undertaken by the field officers of the Agriculture Departments acting for this part of their work as agents of the Authority.
5.45 p.m.
In other words, the Robens Committee evidently believes that the front line duties of an agricultural safety inspector are best performed under arrangements of the kind which now prevail. This is important. One may disagree with parts of the Robent Committee Report, but it is important that this front line work with this special relationship which exists between the inspectors, because of their other duties, and the farmers should continue to prevail. Lord Robens backs this up.
I am sure the House would agree that, pending the outcome of the Government's consideration of the Robens Report, it would be unfortunate for the agricultural safety legislation to be amended in such a way as to negate one of its recommendations. For that good reason, not only because of the drafting, I invite hon. Gentlemen opposite to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Buchan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. We are in general agreement with his conclusion. However, in view of his special responsibilities and the difficult history of this matter, I would ask him to press the Government to make sure that we have an early decision on the Robens Committee Report.
In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

AMENDMENT OF INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES ACT 1965

For the references in the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 to the sum of 'one thousand pounds' (in relation to maximum permitted individual shareholdings in an agricultural co-operative society) there shall be substituted the words 'two thousand pounds'.—[Mr. Deakins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deakins: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this new Clause it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 52, in the Title, line 3, after '1950', insert:
'to amend the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 in respect of agricultural co-operative societies'.

Mr. Deakins: As this is the first time I have spoken in the debate I should declare my general interest in agricultural matters. I hope that will suffice for the rest of the afternoon and evening.
I should like to make a few brief points on the new Clause, which deals with the maximum permitted individual shareholdings in agricultural co-operative societies.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware of the increasing importance of the work of agricultural co-operative societies. It is regrettable that over the last 10 years their total share of agricultural trade has tended to decline as more farmers have been banding together, not in the traditional form of agricultural co-operative societies but in group trading. While this is regrettable on a number of grounds, it has affected the competitive position of agricultural


co-operative societies and in many cases has put them into a serious financial position.
With that background, I think the House should recognise that, with the increasing mechanisation of and productivity in agriculture and the increasing numbers of people still leaving the land to work in industry or to retire, we have a smaller number of farmers each year. A smaller number of farmers means there are fewer people available to become members and supporters of and traders with agricultural co-operative societies.
If the maximum permitted individual shareholding is £1,000, obviously if there are fewer people to invest in agricultural co-operative societies it is only right to try to redress the balance by increasing the maximum permitted individual shareholding in the way suggested in the Clause—namely, by doubling it to £2,000.
As farms tend to get bigger, farmers tend to become more prosperous. Therefore, I do not think that farmers generally would object to what is suggested in the Clause. I am sure that the more efficient farmers, like my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), would not be worried that in future, if the new Clause is accepted, they could contribute up to £2,000 for membership of an agricultural co-operative society. I am sure that the bigger, more progressive farmers appreciate the benefits which these societies can bring to the farming industry.
Agricultural co-operative societies, unlike other trading groups in agriculture or in business life generally, depend to a disproportionate extent upon their members when it comes to raising capital for trading purposes, both working capital and fixed capital. This has always been a feature of the co-operative movement, not only in agriculture but also in the consumer co-operative movement. It is therefore only right that the House should have some regard to the fact that they ought to be able to raise more money from their members, and that we should bear in mind the constant effects of inflation. Under this Government inflation has increased rapidly, and we constantly debate it in the House.
Inflation has an impact on agriculture, particularly on the activities of agricul-

tural co-operative societies, and it is, therefore, only fair to say that what was worth £1,000 in 1965 is probably worth only £500 today. If, therefore, we want to restore the position—not improve it—of agricultural co-operative societies in respect of individual shareholdings to what it was when the Industrial and Provident Societies Act was passed in 1965, we should at least increase the maximum permitted shareholding from £1,000 to £2,000.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) for bringing forward the new Clause, because I always welcome the chance of saying something about agricultural co-operatives. I do not wish to boast—I have had to give it up now—but I am the only Conservative Member who has been a director of a co-operative. I therefore feel strongly about these things and I am broadly in sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said.
There are, however, one or two problems and one or two snags which are not too easy to overcome. The effect of the Clause would be to raise the limit for individual shareholdings in agricultural co-operative societies from £1,000 to £2,000, which is not an undesirable objective. In fact it is a good objective. Unfortunately, it would create discrimination between these societies and other industrial and provident societies, would complicate the administration of the rules governing all societies, and would almost certainly lead to misunderstanding and consequent injustices.
I have declared an interest. I want to see producers' agricultural co-operatives flourish, and, therefore, I am broadly in sympathy with any proposals which might help them. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting forward the Clause, but there is this real problem of co-operatives other than agricultural ones. There is the problem of defining what is an agricultural co-operative, which is not too easy, I understand, and past experience shows that it is not as simple as it might seem.
There is also the problem of wanting to preserve the distinction between a co-operative and a private company of a non-co-operative kind. There is also the important problem of the principle of co-operatives, which is "one man one


vote", yet major shareholders will tend in practice to carry more weight. That is another point that one has to consider.
There is nothing to stop further amounts of loan capital being put in by a member. This can be done to help overcome a shortage of capital for expansion. Because of my connection with fairly large co-operatives, I understand the problems of finding capital. The need for expensive packhouses or storage makes it difficult to raise money, but loan capital is one way of doing it.

Mr. Torney: The hon. Gentleman gives as a reason for not accepting the Clause the difficulty of changing the law, and he cited other co-operatives. He referred to the difficulty of distinguishing between agricultural and other co-operatives. What is wrong with extending this provision to other co-operatives?

Mr. Mills: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete what I have to say, I think he will find that I go a long way towards meeting him. If we do this in this Bill, it should be extended to other co-operatives. I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to complete my speech. If he does, he will find that I cover the point.
For the reasons which I have outlined briefly, the Government cannot accept the Clause, but we have been looking at the shareholding limits and I give the undertaking that legislation to increase them for all societies will be introduced as soon as time permits. The Government are entirely sympathetic to the aims of the Clause but, in view of the objections about other societies, and in the light of the undertaking that I have given, I hope and trust that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw it.

Mr. Deakins: The House is grateful to the Minister for the encouraging statement in the last paragraph of his speech. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion, and Clause, by leave withdrawn.

New Clause 4

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, MARKETING, PROCES- SING AND DISTRIBUTION

(1) There shall be set up an Advisory Committee on all aspects of agriculture production, marketing, processing and distribution.

(2) The Committee shall consist of representatives of the following groups—

(a) agriculture producers;
(b) the agriculture trade and the food industry;
(c) workers in agriculture and the food industry;
(d) consumers;

each group shall have three representatives and shall be responsible for selecting its own representatives after consultation with the Minister;

the Committee shall have a Chairman appointed by the Minister; and the Committee shall regulate its own procedure.

(3) The Committee shall be consulted by the Minister on all problems arising out of the implementation of the common agriculture policy of the European Economic Community in the United Kingdom.

(4) The Committee may consider ways of improving the production, marketing and distribution of agricultural products and food within the United Kingdom and may make recommendations to the Minister.

(5) Notwithstanding anything in the Agricultural Marketing Acts, any proposal for a change in the existing statutory arrangements or for new statutory arrangements for agricultural marketing in the United Kingdom shall be submitted to the Committee for comsideration before being embodied in legislation.—[Mr. Peart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the new Clause we are to take the following Amendments: No. 55, in page 18, line 18, leave out Clause 22.
No. 56, in the Title, line 3, after '1950', insert:
'to establish an advisory committee on agricultural production, marketing, processing and distribution'.

Mr. Peart: The Clause deals with the setting up of an advisory committee on agricultural production, marketing, processing and distribution. It says that there shall be an advisory committee on all aspects of the industry. It then spells out in detail that the committee shall consist of representatives of the following groups: first, the agricultural producers, the farmers; secondly, the agriculture trade and the food industry, which is a large one; thirdly, workers in agriculture, the farm workers, and also workers in the various food trades covering the whole of the food industry; fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, the consumer.


The Clause provides that each group shall have three representatives, and shall be responsible for selecting them after consultation with the Minister.
I shall not spell out all the words in the Clause, but we are trying to create a new advisory committee. The reason for this is that we are about to enter the EEC, or at least the Government are trying to get us in. Their Communities Bill has passed through the House. Although they drastically curtailed the rights of Members to debate the Bill, we spent at least one day discussing the CAP. The Minister need not shake his head. He knows that what I am saying is true. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), who is now a Government Whip, need not indicate his dissent, either. I believe that he used to participate in our agricultural debates, and he knows that what I am saying is correct.
There were few opportunities to debate the CAP. One day on it was not sufficient. We therefore believe that there should be an organisation which will enable producers, consumers and all sections of the food industry to be consulted by the Government. If we are to enter the EEC we have to accept the CAP. That is the price that we must pay for entry. The Government have acceded to M. Pompidou's request. The Government have given in. The Prime Minister has accepted the arrangements made by the French for their farmers. France has gained considerably in the Community discussions that we have had.
6.0 p.m.
We have now to accept that there is to be a common agricultural policy. As I have often described it, it is neither common nor, as yet, is it a policy. There are still great variations within the Community and there is still no free trade within the Community in agricultural goods and food products which move across the various frontiers. However, we have to accept this. We have to agree to Clause 6 of the European Communities Bill, which sets up a new type of organisation. I shall not spell it out. We debated this matter. The Minister has announced what he is to do in relation to an intervention board and the policy which will be pursued for the marketing

of cereals and for the various grain centres in the British Isles. We have had that detail given to us. It was sprung on us at the last minute when we discussed Clause 6 of the European Communities Bill. There should have been a White Paper about it.
Nevertheless, inevitably we shall enter the Community, in which major decisions will be taken outside this country. Whatever one's views about Community policy, whether one agrees with it or one is anti-Europe, or a sceptic like myself—"sceptic" is a good word to express my views—or whether one is like most Ministers, who are fanatical about their desire to rush into Europe, that does not matter. Inevitably, the main decisions will be taken by the Commission. There will be a Council of Ministers, however, and our Minister of Agriculture will be a member of that body. There will be a European Parliament, which as yet is only a consultative assembly which has no power to check and scrutinise the legislation in the way that we know from our parliamentary procedures. This was one of our worries and concerns during the passage of the European Communities Bill. We are afraid that there will not be adequate scrutiny of the legislation which may flow from Brussels. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows—I am sure that he will be objective about it—approximately 75 per cent. of the delegated legislation which flows from the Community is concerned with agricultural policy. It is spelt out in great detail that we have to accept the directives of the Community which in many ways will affect even the Bill we are discussing.
We have said this time and again. We stressed it in Committee and on Second Reading. We feel that, inevitably, if we are to have a decision-making body outside this country it is important that the effects of this agricultural policy on the consumer, the producer and those who work in the industry should be adequately safeguarded. Therefore, it is right that the Department should set up some machinery which will enable the various people listed in the Clause to make their views known to our Government. This will be extremely important.
In this modern world, there is great talk of devolution, of more responsibility


being placed on individuals. This is a very important political matter. It is a wider matter which we could discuss at great length. I shall not pursue it too far. However, if we are to have partnership with industry and if we are to enable our ordinary citizens to feel that they are part of government, we must create a body of the kind we propose. There is a great danger that Britain will be subject to decisions of a bureaucracy without adequate parliamentary scrutiny or check. It is reasonable that in the Bill some machinery should be created which would enable the House of Commons and industry connected with agriculture and food to have their say and convey their views adequately to our Minister, who, after all, will be on the Council of Ministers and here, too, will be responsible for the new policy which will emerge in Europe.
I should have thought that such a provision was reasonable. I am not being dogmatic. Even if we did not enter the Common Market but had to play our part in a wider community, with EFTA still and, probably, with a new association with the Six, we should inevitably have to create the sort of machinery we have proposed in the Clause.
Another specific reason for the Clause is that the Bill contains various Clauses which destroy the committees which exist in Britatin. For example, Clause 19 deals with Section 78(1) of the Agriculture Act, 1947. That Act contains arrangements for the setting up of a body to furnish information to an agricultural advisory committee relating to statistics and the information necessary for those in the industry, because this is vital to the industry and the Government.
We also had, for example, our annual discussion during the price review procedures. This is to go. I do not know for what reason. When we enter the Community, we shall be subject to a directive which will say to Britain that she must set up a new advisory committee. There will be an advisory committee which will collect information necessary for the Commission to make decisions and for the new price procedures which will arise in the new Community. These price review procedures will not be the same as those we have at present, which flowed from the 1947 Act. Some of our farmers believe that

the situation will be the same. I think that they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The sort of review which we have been used to will go and the procedure will be quite different when we finally accept the common agricultural policy. Indeed, the intervention board, which fundamentally acts as an agent for the Commission in relation to prices and marketing issues which affect cereals—a very large section of our farming industry—will make a new kind of procedure inevitable in Europe. Many sincere farmers are worried about this and feel that there will not be the meaningful consultations that we have now through our review procedures. This will be a pity. If price decisions are made in Europe and elsewhere, we shall have to have discussions.
The procedures have been spelt out in the Treaty of Accession. Hon. Members know full well what they mean, so I shall not go into detail. On page 124 of the Treaty of Accession, Part I, there is a declaration which deals with the system for fixing Community farm prices. It is there spelt out. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany, on behalf of the Community delegation, made a statement on the system for fixing Community farm prices. In reply, on behalf of the United Kingdom delegation the Chancellor of the Duchy recorded his agreement with the statement of the Community, and said that he was certain that it was the intention to have effective and meaningful contacts in particular with producer organisations operating at Community level. He went on to spell out in detail the sort of machinery which will exist. This machinery will be quite different. That is why we are anxious to preserve that consultation at a United Kingdom level with our producers, farmworkers, consumers and others in the industry.
Moreover, in the Community there is a whole series of committees dealing with the industry. A whole list of committees dealing with agriculture is given in Annex IX of the Treaty of Accession, which sets out the committees referred to in Article 148(2) of the Act of Accession.
There are the Joint Advisory Committee on Social Questions relating to Paid Agricultural Workers; the Joint Advisory Committee on Social Questions in the Sea-fishing Industry, which in a way is


associated with agriculture; the special Transport Committee; and the Advisory Committees on Milk and Milk Products; on Pigmeat; on Beef and Veal; on Poultrymeat and Eggs; and on Cereals, of which there is a Specialist Rice Section. Although we do not grow rice here, we consume it. There are also Advisory Committees on Oils and Fats; on Sugar, which will no doubt cover problems affecting our sugar-beet industry; on Fruit and Vegetables; and on Wine-growing. In view of what I said earlier, we know that we have our own home-grown wine industry. There is an Advisory Committee on Live Plants. We shall have many advisory committees when we enter Europe. I have not mentioned all those which are listed, but I must mention the last two, which are very important: the Advisory Committee on Questions of Agricultural Structure Policy and the Advisory Committee on Social Questions relating to Farmers.
That means a great deal of work for the Department and various other people who will have to be found to man the committees, which I assume will sit in Brussels and will be in touch with the Commission and the bureaucracy there. They will no doubt report to the Council of Ministers, whose views will perhaps filter down through our British representatives on the committees to the Minister here. Would not it be far better if we created the sort of committee spelt out in detail in our Amendment and the Clause?
The Government are ending for ever the main legislation which has been enshrined in two major Acts, the Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1957. The first was a Labour Government's and the second was a Conservative Government's Act. They set the pattern for our whole administrative policy for the industry in the post-war period. The 1947 Act created a partnership in the industry. In it we spelt out how the industry should be consulted. The machinery set up then is to go. The county agricultural executive committees are to be destroyed. There is vague talk about regional panels, but the machinery will not be of the same type. The farming community will need something. Whatever we may have said about the county committees, they represented a type of machinery which

enabled the producers—the farmer and the farmworker—to make their views known directly to the Minister and to help the Minister administer policy.
The machinery was unique, envied by agriculturists all over the world. It is now to go. The details of its ending are spelt out in various Clauses. I have mentioned Clause 19, but the main Clause in question is Clause 22, which abolishes agricultural executive committees, and even the bee committees. How doctrinaire can the Minister be when he deals specifically with those committees in a Bill like this? The Clause also abolishes agricultural wages committees in Scotland.
In order to embrace a new policy, the Community policy, we are to have a levy system and a managed market. We are to destroy an administrative structure which has enabled the farmer to give advice to the Government. We are also to destroy advisory committees, which have worked well. We are to destroy a system which has been an example to Europe and far beyond.
6.15 p.m.
That is why I feel very strongly about the matter. It will be a tragedy if we do not have the meaningful co-operation that we have had at a county level over the years under successive Governments. Sometimes those county committees would meet at Whitehall Place. Together, their representatives from England and Wales and their chairmen and vice-chairmen would express their views on a price review, or a major aspect of policy, to the Minister. Here was a means whereby, apart from producer representations through the price review or through the officials at Agriculture House, the leaders of the National Farmers Union rightly consulted Ministers from time to time on many major matters. Here was a way in which at county level, the grass roots of the industry, we could have the views of the men in the areas.
The committees were comprised of ministerial nominees together with three direct representatives from the NFU, two representatives of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, and two representatives from the Country Landowners' Association. They performed a remarkable job.
There is another reason why many hon. Members who have been interested in safety matters will be concerned about what the Minister is doing. I refer to the large number of county safety committees, which I believe will inevitably be cut out and become defunct. If the executive committee goes, county safety committees could be affected. I know that the NUAAW is worried about this. It knows that many of the county committees had a staff which serviced the safety committees. I should like to know whether the abolition of county committees can affect the safety committees. Who will administer some of the services which are essential to their work? It would be a tragedy if the safety committees went.
However, the Minister is anxious to get ahead with his policy, anxious to rush into Europe, anxious to have the Bill, anxious to destroy a system which has worked, anxious to end the advisory committees which were set up under previous legislation. It is a tragedy.
That is why we have moved the Clause. We have sought to create a new type of machinery which would enable us to have a discussion through the representatives of the agriculture producers, workers in the agriculture trade and the food industry, workers in agriculture and the food industry and the consumers. They could all have their views made known to an advisory committee, which in turn advised the Minister. I do not think that this would mean a vast bureaucracy or that it would cost much. We have spelt out the numbers, saying that each group should have three representatives. The cost would be a small price to pay for co-operation, and I believe that it would be sensible to pay it. The Minister has claimed that he is cutting down administrative costs. One of his justifications for the Bill was the argument that he had to make cuts in services.
It is for that reason that we are making a strong and I hope a powerful case for the Clause. I hope that we shall receive a constructive reply. This is one of the most important measures which we shall debate this evening. Inevitably that is so because of the reasons which I have mentioned and because the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill is ending a committee system which has worked and has given positive advice

in the long run to the Minister of State, which is so essential.
We are now going into a larger European organisation which will for obvious reasons be much more remote from Whitehall. Therefore, the industry is bound to feel that in the end there must be proper consultation. For that reason I know it will support the Clause.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), I am prepared to accept that we must look to the common agricultural policy as being Britain's future agricultural policy. Much as we may deplore it, we must come to terms with the fact that in future our agricultural discussions will be in the context of the CAP.
I find it irritating in the course of these discussions, and particularly in the course of the arguments, on the European Communities Bill, to hear right hon. and hon. Members opposite pretend that the CAP is something which will benefit us. Perhaps there are some arguments in favour of entry into the Community, but the one thing on which we shall lose on every count is the CAP. It will be a total disaster for this country. It would help our discussions a great deal if hon. Members who are in favour of entry into the Community were prepared to accept that. No one in their senses can possibly regard a policy which forces up food prices, and requires us to spend hundreds of millions of pounds from our balance of payments surplus to achieve it, as one which makes sense for this country.
The committee which we propose in the new Clause would not have any significant effect on the major planks of the CAP. No one is suggesting that the committee would influence the level of prices decided in Brussels. No one is suggesting that the committee would influence the hundreds of millions of pounds which the British people must pay into the central agricultural fund. A whole host of regulations and a massive bureacracy will be applied to this country, and they should be discussed openly. Members of the proposed committee would be able to create a dialogue which would be reported in the mass media.
I am sure that no one would deny the tremendous variations and differences between agriculture in this country and


parts of the Community. The matters which the committee could usefully discuss would be in addition to a whole host of minor regulations. The committee could discuss more important things, such as the regulations which will affect the Milk Marketing Board and the likely changes which will have to be made in the board's policies. Surely it would be useful if such policies could be openly discussed by the committee—for example, the proposal to introduce sheep regulations. There is a good deal of discussion about that matter and the farmers' unions are not sure whether they should be in favour of the regulation. An organisation of this type could perform a useful role in seeking to evaluate the effect which the Commission's proposals would have on different sections of agriculture in this country.
The issue which is most frequently raised is our marginal and hill farms. As we know, the Community is looking at the possibility of introducing new measures and proposals for it. Would it not make sense that, in addition to the discussions which we have in Parliament which are restricted, we should have a body of this nature, composed of people who are respected throughout all sections of the agricultural industry, who could freely discuss the effects which the regulations would have on agriculture? Such a body could support the Minister in his representations in Brussels. It would be to his advantage to be able to quote the conclusions and deliberations of the committee when he is arguing forcibly that we must have certain modifications to the proposals which the Commission may bring forward to meet the interests of our agricultural industry.
My right hon. Friend dealt at some length with the degree to which the Government are sweeping away the agricultural executives and other bodies which enabled people in the industry to participate in the application of agricultural policy. Although not all the agricultural executives in Scotland, for instance, were working excellently, I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland would point out that some of the Scottish executives were doing a useful job. Much of the discussions which took place in the executives were reported in the newspapers and provided a valuable

source of information. The question of what land should go for urban development and other issues were discussed by the executives and help was given as a result of the attention which the executives directed to various matters.
This all falls into a pattern. We are seeing a massive cut back, a sweeping away of existing bodies whereby people in the industry, as opposed to civil servants, have been able to participate in some sort of quasi-official way in the application of policy. The committee would reverse that trend. It would offset the fact that we are sweeping away all these bodies. At the same time as the Government are ending participation in that direction, they are massively increasing the number of civil servants in agriculture. It is true that the Minister of State has managed to make a few cuts and that one or two advisers have been paid off, but in their place we shall recruit an army of civil servants which will do nothing positive.

Mr. John Brewis: Mr. John Brewis (Galloway) indicated dissent—

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Is he saying that no additional civil servants will be recruited? Is he saying that the other officers throughout the country will not require the recruitment of additional civil servants? The fact is that an army of new civil servants is being recruited to do nothing positive. It will not enable the industry to be more efficient, like the advisory service does, but will simply operate the whole paraphernalia of regulations and the absurd method of forcing up agricultural prices to bring us into line with the Common Market prices.
6.30 p.m.
It is sad that we seem to be getting into a situation in which the Minister and Whitehall are not prepared to listen on any scale to the views of the industry. They are anxious to dispense with as many as possible of the bodies which enable people in the industry to put their view and to have a dialogue which is reported in the agricultural Press. We are seeing the philosophy that the man in Whitehall knows best—and if he does not know best, the man in Brussels will not.
The advisory committee we propose would to some extent offset this philosophy. It would give the people in the agricultural industry a degree of confidence, some reassurance that they would have a forum in which their views could be thrashed out, that there would not be simply discussions through representatives of the farmers talking to Ministers and COPA and Community officials behind closed doors. They would see the advisory committee as a genuine forum for representatives of the industry to express their views and attitudes about the effects which Community policy will have on the British aspects of Community agriculture, and they could do so without inhibition.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the new Clause serious consideration and draw back from his appalling view that all these bodies should he swept away and that the whole thing should be administered by civil servants in Whitehall, Reading and Brussels.

Mr. Torney: I am not an agricultural expert by any means and would bow to the greater knowledge of the Minister of Agriculture. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, I understand that he is a farmer and he should therefore know something about it. But I do not think that one needs to be an expert to see the evidence before one's eyes. That evidence shows that there have been great improvements in agriculture in recent years, certainly since the operation of the Agriculture Act, 1947. The growth in the efficiency and success of British agriculture in these last 25 years is due in no small measure to that Act.
Sections 71 and 72 of the Act set up the county agricultural executive committees and new Clause 4 seeks to embody in this Bill some similar form of consultation. The Act laid down that the agricultural executive committees would be established
…with the duty of promoting agricultural development and efficiency …
The Preamble to the Act said that it was also to promote the efficiency and stability of the industry. Just as Sections 71 and 72 of the Act were concerned with the efficiency and stability of the industry in 1947, so such concern for the efficiency and stability of the industry is just as necessary, if not more so, in

1972 and onwards. I was not impressed in Standing Committee by the reasons which the Government advanced for the repeal of Sections 71 and 72. I was not convinced by their rather flimsy arguments that these committees are no longer required.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has stated the need not only to maintain the efficiency and stability of British agriculture by the maintenance of the highest possible level of consultation with producers, workers and consumers. He has pointed to the shackles which our entry into the European Economic Community will place upon us because of the weakness of some sections of the agricultural industry on the Continent to which we are to conform, and about all because of the complete abolition of democracy as we know it today through our not being allowed to have consultations of any kind. Because of these factors, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, there is an even greater need to maintain the watchdog Sections of the 1947 Act.
New Clause 4 should be accepted by the Government in order that in these times of trying stress for all our industry, particularly agriculture, we are still able to maintain the high form of consultation we have had in the past. If the Government refuse to accept the new Clause, I hope that they will tell us exactly what they intend to do, bearing in mind our entry into the EEC, to ensure the highest possible level of consultation with all sections of the agricultural industry—employers, workers and consumers—as envisaged by the 1947 Act.

Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) is a little optimistic if he hopes that the Government will accept new Clause 4. They were generous about new Clause 3, although they did not accept it. They said that they would be bringing in legislation to deal with the matter it raised. If we have the same sort of assurance on new Clause 4, we might feel that that is the sort of safeguard we are looking for, even though the Government cannot accept the wording of new Clause 4.
New Clause 4 and Amendment No. 55 go together. We are not merely suggesting that a new advisory committee should


be set up for the agricultural industry to replace county agricultural executive committees. We are suggesting—and I hope that we shall be able to show our feelings in the Division Lobby—that county agricultural executive committees should not be abolished and that in addition there should be set up this new advisory committee.
We regard county agricultural executive comittees in particular as being a major means, certainly since the war, whereby the Ministry has been able to keep in touch with grass roots opinion in agriculture. I stress "grass roots" because, of course, there are always consultations between Whitehall and Agriculture House, the headquarters of the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales. But important as these latter consultations are, they are no substitute for on-the-ground contact between representatives of the farming community and their own members in the districts, acting as a channel of communication to the officers of the Ministry in the regions.
Furthermore, we are much concerned that the consultation should not be confined to consultation with farmers. Agriculture will face changing circumstances over the next decade or so, some of them induced by the Government, and some which would have happened in any event, under a Labour or a Conservative Government. In such changing circumstances, any Government ought to broaden the area of consultation, for this is, after all, not just an agriculture industry, important though that is, but is also a food industry, with many other interests at stake in the future well being of agriculture itself.
Subsection (2) of new Clause 4 proposes that the new advisory committee should cover not only farmers but workers in the agriculture and food industries. The workers do not at present get a look in on any advisory bodies dealing with agricultural matters. Also, we propose that consumers should be brought into proper consultation. At present, consumers are lucky if they have representation on any of the statutory bodies. There may be one consumer representative on one of the marketing boards, perhaps—I think that there is a consumer advisory committee within the Meat and Livestock Marketing Com-

mission set-up—but consumer representation at that sort of level has not been particularly effective in protecting consumer interests. If British agriculture is to prosper in the future in the way it has undoubtedly prospered since 1947 and the great Tom Williams Act of that year, we must have much more consultation with and regard for consumer interests as well as for the interests of agricultural producers.
There is a fourth category covered by subsection (2), namely, the other industries, many of them great industries employing many thousands of people, who are dependent on the well being of agriculture itself. I refer not only to the meat trade but to the cereals trade, the seeds trade and the many other trades supplying requisites of one kind or another to farmers which ought to have a voice when agricultural policy matters are being decided.
It was always a matter of regret to me before I came to the House that our Price Review procedure had not been reformed for a number of years and that it was still very much a matter of bargaining between the Government and the leadership of the National Farmers' Union, not taking into account all the other interests in and dependent upon the agriculture and food industries which were nevertheless directly affected in their well being by the Price Review.
The period of change through which we are likely to go will be induced not only by the disastrous common agricultural policy which we shall have to adopt for the few years while we are in the Common Market but it will be the result of changes in the functions of many of the groups and bodies at present working in agriculture. I think, in particular, of the changing rôle of agricultural cooperative societies and non-agricultural groups of traders making efforts to secure better terms for their products. The marketing boards are having to adapt to the new situation brought about partly by the present Government and partly by the general rise in food prices resulting in some measure from world factors and in some measure from the Government's general economic policy.
It is vital that there be an advisory committee which will pay regard to the future pattern of marketing boards in this country. The Minister owes the


House and the country an explanation in this respect, because his attitude to marketing boards is dubious and devious, to put it mildly. I am sure that, unofficially, he is telling the leadership of the NFU, particularly in England and Wales, that it should lay off all the talk about new marketing boards for meat and cereals because he is a bit worried about the general marketing board picture.
I am sure that that is his attitude, and I have wondered why he adopts that line, for there is great grass-roots pressure from farmers to have more statutory marketing arrangements for cereals and meat, which are, after all, responsible for about 40 per cent. or more of total farm sales in this country. In considering the future of cereals and meat, we should have regard to the grass-roots demand being expressed by farmers for strengthened statutory marketing organisations.
Perhaps the Minister does not like marketing boards, though I think that hardly possible because anyone who has any connection with agriculture must appreciate the great work which they have done since the 1930s. It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman has some doubt whether new marketing boards would be acceptable to the Common Market authorities. If that is the reason for his rather devious attitude on the matter, it must give us cause for concern, since we have been proceeding quietly on the assumption that the position of our existing marketing boards would be satisfactory to the EEC and that no real changes in functions or powers would be required.
6.45 p.m.
If the EEC is saying, "We do not like your marketing boards system and we would not agree to any new ones", that would put the futre of our existing boards in jeopardy. The House ought to be worried about that, and it is a matter with which our proposed advisory committee could well concern itself.
The new Clause would, for the first time, recognise the importance of the consumer in agricultural matters. Good though our agricultural policy has been since 1947, and good though it has been that our Minister of Agriculture has always—or nearly always—been Minister of Food as well, the fact remains that we have neglected the interests of the

consumer, and at no time more so than in recent years, with the rises in food prices. For that reason, if for no other, it is vital that there should be some such advisory committee as the new Clause would establish.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me in this debate. After last night's performance, I thought there was some danger that my recess would begin rather early. But the patience of the Chair is immense, and for my small peace offering I undertake to be very brief on this occasion.
New Clause 4 is of immense importance to the farming community in the context of the Common Market. I should say at the outset, however, that there are certain aspects of the new Clause about which I am not altogether happy. As one who believes in devolution of authority and in allowing people—in the present Government's phrase—to stand on their own feet and to get on with their own tasks in life, I am not altogether happy at the proposal that representatives from each group would be appointed after consultation with the Minister. Equally, I am not quite happy at the idea that the chairman of the new advisory committee should be appointed by the Minister.
I can well understand the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) in framing the new Clause in this way, since he hopes one day to be Minister himself and he wants to be involved in the administration of the advisory committee. For my part, however, I should argue forcefully that there is need for a great devolution of authority in this respect, and the proposed advisory committee could have been used as a step in that direction.
In my view, advisory committees on a regional basis could be even more effective than a national advisory committee. The problems of agriculture in Wales, in Scotland and in East Anglia, for example, differ considerably, as do the problems of West Wales from those in Glamorganshire. I feel, therefore, that regional advisory committees could have led to a more effective analysis of the situation. But, be that as it may, this is a step in the right direction.
Each group which would be represented on the advisory committee is


directly involved in and affected by the implementation of the common agricultural policy. There is great concern about various aspects of the CAP among British farmers, consumers have a direct interest in the way prices will increase, and so on. It will be no good the Minister saying that this is just another advisory committee in a long line of such committees over the years, and we shall now have a new set-up. Indeed, we shall have a new set-up, but it will be highly undemocratic. It will be exceptionally bureaucratic, something we have never experienced in agriculture since the war. What will happen next year will be a new departure. We shall have a bureaucratic system and considerably less democratic control.
I turn to the question of the agricultural executive committees. In Committee the Minister of State said that there were 800 people involved in such committees. According to him, the work which they were doing was not of immense significance. Yet he went on to talk about the advice which they gave in difficult grant and subsidy cases and the borderline cases which often arose on the hills and uplands. They advise the Minister whether he should allow late claims in cases of hardship.
For 25 years the county committees have performed an important task. At times they have been appeal bodies to which farmers, feeling aggrieved about the decisions of the Minister, could go either through their union or directly to the chairman of the committee and ask for a review or examination of the case. The value of this procedure was that the farmer knew that his case would be reexamined, not by officials, but by other farmers. If a hill farmer genuinely believed that he was entitled to the hill sheep or cow subsidy and the Department and the local official said that he did not fall within the regulations, a panel would be set up, together with a farmer who was a member of the county committee, to examine the situation.
The Minister will have to give better excuses than that we shall save £150,000 every year as a result of abolishing the agricultural executive committees. The liaison officer to whom farmers could go direct was the contact with the Minister. The danger of what is proposed in the

Bill and of what will happen when we enter the Common Market is that consultation and contact will be lost, and people will feel that they do not matter and that decisions may be taken without their control or without their being asked for their opinion.
The Minister will have to adduce far better arguments than those which were adduced in Committee. To talk about saving £150,000 and, at the same time, to devote hundreds of millions of pounds across the exchanges to the common agricultural policy and French farmers—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State gets excited when we talk about the French farmers, so I had better leave the matter there.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): A saving of £150,000 may be unimportant to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones), but to the ordinary people and taxpayers of this country any saving is worth while. The hon. Gentleman's attitude is typical of that of his party when it was in office. It had no care for the taxpayers' money; it was there to spend and to run through the fingers of the Government. Precisely the same attitude has been adopted by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that those who at a future election will have to bear in mind that the Labour Party aspires to government will remember the speech of the hon. Gentleman and his lack of husbandry of the resources of the country.
This debate has demonstrated three things. First, we have been entertained yet again to a classic demonstration of the Euro-phobia of the Labour Party. The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) continually refers to my right hon. Friend the Minister and others among my colleagues as Euro-fanatics. The Labour Party aspires to be an international party. When the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet, it teetered on the brink of the Common Market, but it had neither the courage nor the resolution to continue with its policy. No one more than the right hon. Gentleman has gone back on almost everything which was said and written about Europe when the Labour Party was in office. Such speeches as we have heard today, and lectures from the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, which


we had so often in the debates on the Common Market, come ill from the Opposition.
Secondly, the Labour Party has demonstrated yet again that it never moves with the times. What was good enough for the right hon. Member for Workington in 1947 is good enough for him today. Although the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) may be unable to do his mathematics properly, I believe that, 25 years on, we must adjust and adapt our policies to the new situation and not maintain them exactly as they are. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) was the one hon. Member opposite who at least paid lip service to the possibility of reforms and he was prepared to countenance them, no matter how dogmatic—and he is dogmatic—and traditionalist the right hon. Member for Workington may be. We have had a demonstration, not only of Euro-phobia, but of conservatism of the most reactionary sort from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peart: I was trying to demonstrate that the 1947 Act, later amended by the 1957 Act and subsequent legislation which I had the honour to pilot through the House, was far superior to anything which had emerged from Brussels. Even Dr. Mansholt, the German Foreign Minister recently and Ministers in this country know full well in their hearts that inevitably the common agricultural policy will have to be altered and will have to come nearer to our system.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What conceit! The 1947 and 1957 Acts are good, and I should be the first to pay tribute to the benefits which they have brought to farming. But we on this side of the House are not content with what is good. We believe in excellence and improvement. We do not sit back on our laurels, as the right hon. Gentleman does, feeling content with what we have. We are prepared to look at the legislation and structure of government and to improve it. The right hon. Gentleman, by his intervention, has demonstrated how much of a conservative he is.
The third main point which this debate has demonstrated is that the right hon. Gentleman in particular but hon. Members opposite in general have not only

completely ignored what was said in Committee and failed to read the reports of the Committee proceedings but have failed to understand what we are doing and why.
The first point that I make in dealing with the matters raised in the debate is that what we propose in the Bill about the agricultural executive committees has nothing to do with Europe, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman tried to make out. As we said in Committee, this has been done for its own reasons, and I shall give them in a moment—

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

No Motion being made thereon, further Proceeding stood adjourned pursuant to Standing Order No. 190 (Procedure at time of Private Business) till Tuesday next.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]

Postponed Proceeding on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), resumed.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I want to return to the substance of the Amendment and the new Clause. It is important to differentiate between the two main lines which have run through the debate. The first, which concerns Amendment No. 55, is why we are removing the agricultural executive committees. In this connection, I have to repeat some of the arguments that I put forward in Committee. If they did not go home then, they may tonight. I shall then turn to the more specific aspects of the new Clause.
I must join the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members opposite in paying tribute to the useful work that the agricultural executive committees have done over the years. At the same time, unlike right hon. and hon. Gentlemen


opposite, we on this side move with the times. We are prepared to recognise that the work of those committees has been progressively reduced over the years to the point where the present committee system cannot be justified in the modern situation.
It was for this reason that my right hon. Friend announced in January last year that he proposed to replace the county agricultural executive committees in England and Wales by small regional panels. Since then the committees have been extremely co-operative in our various plans and in identifying potential activities. The committee system included 58 county agricultural executive committees, their sub-committees and their district committees—more than 300 bodies in all. We think that this is too expensive and elaborate for the, few remaining tasks. Similarly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced in January his intention to abolish the 11 agricultural executive committees and their sub-committees in Scotland and, over the period since then, their work has been concentrated on their essential statutory tasks.
The county agricultural executive committees in England and Wales had important and extensive statutory and executive functions for many years after they were first set up. They supervised bad farmers. They arbitrated between landlord and tenant. They administered a wide range of services. They paid grants and subsidies to farmers. But now they exercise none of those functions. Their main rôle is to provide a two-way channel of communication between the Government and the grassroots of the agriculture industry.
I agree with right hon. and hon. Gentlement opposite about the importance of this two-way communication of ideas and other links between the Government and the industry. However, it is our view that the regional panels that we propose to set up will carry out these functions and the other main task which is that of advising Ministers on farmers' representations against decisions by officials in grant or subsidy cases most effectively This will be more in keeping with the present needs of the industry, and that is the main reason why we feel that there is no

need to keep the county agricultural executive committees in existence in future.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The hon. Gentleman is trying to tell us that two-way contact is important. At the same time in Wales he is disbanding 12 committees and putting two in their place.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We have to see whether the job can be done as well by the two panels. We have some experience of this in Scotland. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) knows that we have our Winter Keep Consultative Panel, and the hon. Gentleman is always ready to point out what good and valuable work it does. This is one panel for the whole of Scotland, though of course it has its sub-panels. However it looks not only at problems concerning the winter keep scheme and classification. It also provides a great deal of useful information. It is intended in Scotland that the advisory and review functions of the old agricultural executive committees shall be taken over by a new panel to be known as the Scottish Agricultural Consultative Panel which will be an expanded form of our present Winter Keep Consultative Panel.
Our view is that there is insufficient essential work for these committees to do. In the circumstances we feel that it would be wrong to continue the present committee structure. We are anxious to bring the committees to an end and to set up the new panels as soon as possible. By doing this we shall be making worthwhile savings in public funds. At the same time we shall be making worthwhile savings in the time of a number of very busy people. It would be both wrong and wasteful to keep these committees in existence. This important consultative work on which the party opposite places great emphasis can be done equally well by the new panels, without keeping a top heavy structure like the agricultural executive committees.
I turn now to the new Clause.

Mr. Peart: About time.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman wished to know our arguments about the executive committees. I assume that he wanted me to answer his questions.
The new Clause deals with effective consultation. I cannot accept nor can I recommend the House to accept that the right way of achieving effective consultation is to create by Statute an advisory committee, with the obligation to consult it on the issues listed in the Clause.
I summarise my arguments under three heads. First, to formalise consultation in the hard and fast statutory way laid down in the new Clause would be bound to make consultation slower and more rigid. It would create delay in the implementation of common policy, and this could be damaging to the interests of our own producers and traders and of our consumers. If the Clause were enacted, it would be likely that consultations with the advisory committee would tend to become a very ineffective substitute for the present consultations that we have with the unions, trade associations and other bodies.
The second main objection to the Clause concerns the range of the problems about which the committee would advise the Government. It is so wide that the committee could not include those with specialist knowledge and, therefore, its function would be in the broadest general advisory sense. I do not believe that it could achieve fully the objectives which hon. Members would like it to achieve. The Clause would oblige the Minister to consult this body on all problems arising on the implementation of the common agricultural policy, including, presumably, specialised problems of certain commodities. This would introduce rigidity and delays.
Third—this is the most important point—if the new Clause were enacted it would import into the existing procedures under the Agricultural Marketing Acts a new requirement to consult the advisory committee to suggest this ignores the fact that these procedures are designed to ensure that all interests have an opportunity to express their views on the introduction of a marketing scheme or on changes in the marketing scheme and to have those views independently assessed. I am not convinced that an additional stage is necessary in these procedures.
We are being realistic in what we are doing about the functions of the agricultural executive committees. We are approaching their major function of con-

sultation in a much more sensible way which will give just as good value through the panels.
Although I sympathise with the view of hon. Members opposite that consultation is important at all stages, I believe that it would produce rigidities and delays because of the width of the area they are trying to cover. The new Clause is unnecessary, because the procedure is laid down under the Act for consultation and changes. I reject entirely the Euro-phobia of hon. Members opposite and I cannot advise the House to accept either the new Clause or the Amendment.

Mr. Buchan: It is a sad day for the House. After the co-operation and wisdom we experienced in Committee, we should have had a rather more forthcoming attitude from the Minister. I intend no disrespect to the junior Minister when I say that this debate should have been replied to by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Minister, who at a moment's notice can announce the setting up of new intervention boards, should have been here to defend this aspect of his policy, because this goes to the heart of what he is doing to our agricultural background and policy. It should not have been left to the junior Minister to reply to this debate. The hon. Gentleman should not have been persuaded to put a squib at his back and start off with those pyrotechnics, because this is a serious issue.
The arguments presented by the Under-Secretary were not only superficial. He said that he respects our motives. I did not respect the bases of his argument. I believe that they are phoney and that he knows that they are phoney. In saying that I do not intend to engage in pyrotechnics across the Dispatch Box.
The Under-Secretary gave us that nonsense about saving £150,000 on the present structure. This is the Government who will cost us about £450 million across the exchanges by the time they come to the end of their policy and who, in the pursuance of their European adventure, will take £500 million out of the pockets of the lowest quarter of the people. The poorest quarter will pay. Half of it will be given to the Common Market farmers and half will be transferred to the wealthy in Britain in the form of tax cuts.
As the Government are saying to the poorest of the British people that they can afford an enormous amount of extra money to pay for the Government's Common Market agricultural policy, we should not be told that the whole of our consultative processes are being scrapped to save £150,000.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that I require no lecture from him on what is phoney? Nor should he lecture a Government who in their two years in office have reduced taxation by £3,000 million a year.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: I do not care greatly whether the hon. Gentleman wants to get lectures. He needs them. I shall deal with the question of taxation, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that. If I had raised it, I should doubtless have been ruled out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The second piece of nonsense we had from the Under-Secretary was that this is somehow linked with our Euro-phobia. On the contrary, the whole background and basis of the scrapping of the consultative classes is the Common Market adventure. The change to the panels is tied up with the so-called Common Market's consultative measures. In our debates on the European Communities Bill we considered what was regarded as consultation and negotiation and the Solicitor-General nipped in rather like the Official Solicitor—and tried to defend—not very successfully—the consultative processes of the Common Market.
The Under-Secretary's third argument was that we did not move with the times. This was from a Government who are hooking and linking our agricultural policy on to the near mediæval peasant economy of Western Europe. Britain's agricultural economy and structure, dating very largely from the 1947 Act, is a century ahead of the organisation and structure in the Common Market, but that is what the Government are trying to take us back to. For some reason, hon. Members opposite think that movement is progress; but movement is not always progress. People can move backwards.
Then the Under-Secretary said that we are ignoring all that was said in Com-

mittee. On the contrary, we understand very clearly from what was said in Committee the need for us to table, not only the defensive Amendment No. 55, but also the new Clause to establish an advisory committee.
The rejection of our proposal is based on the incredible argument of rigidity, delay and formalisation. The Government reject an advisory board on the ground that it would be rigid, but they are writing into our agricultural system an Intervention Board which will be responsible for consultation with no one. It will have the task of directly implementing within Britain the policy of the Common Market. It will be rigid and formalised and acting upon decisions and price levels arrived at, not in Britain, but in Brussels. Therefore, the Government should not talk to us about rigidity and inflexibility.
The right hon. Gentleman announced the Intervention Board in reply to an Amendment. It should have been introduced in a White Paper which described at length its functions. The Government, who talk glibly about saving the taxpayers' money, then set up a board which they say candidly will be dealing with large sums of money and affecting the activities of a great many people.
We believe that when it deals with large sums of money and affects the lives of the people then we have the right to have a say. Perhaps hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not accept this, but this is what we are trying to achieve. They should not bring forward this kind of argument and ask a junior Minister to present it. The Government say that the advisory board we propose is too wide and would have insufficient knowledge. Has the right hon. Gentleman never heard of a staff of experts to advise an advisory board? Why not draw upon that? Is it because he is putting so many civil servants into the intervention Board that there will be none left? Someone asked earlier about the numbers involved in the board. We have been told that there will be 200 in the board headquarters at Reading alone. This is another bureaucracy. They should not come forward to us with nonsense about inflexibility and bureaucracy because it is they who are introducing this—a Government who were elected to cut back the Civil Service.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. He would know, if he had done his homework, that the abolition of the deficiency payments scheme over the next two three or four years will more than release enough members of the "bureaucracy" as he calls it to run any Intervention Board.

Mr. Buchan: I am not particularly concerned about that. It seems as though the Government are spending half their time cutting down the numbers of people doing useful work and replacing them with people doing bureaucratic, statistical work. Cut back on the advisory service, on all those things that help production and replace it with the Intervention Board, is what the right hon. Gentleman says. If he regards that as being to his credit, I am happy that he should have it.
There are other reasons why we should have this advisory board. Above all there is the consumer interest. We got very short shrift in some of our earlier comments about the rôle of the co-operative movement. What we hope is that when the Government accept this board, after they had been convinced by my speech, they will pay some attention to the cooperative movement which has given so much advice to consumers.
I must stress the question of prices. We are in grave danger of handing over our own faltering means of preventing price increases to an outside body in the Common Market. It is important to understand what is happening here. The background is that between May and June this year the retail food price index jumped by 1·7 points. That was one of the highest rises ever, indeed it has only once been exceeded and that was last year when the rise was 2·6 points. That is the record of this Government. In 1970 the increase was 0·9, a third of what it was last year. The year before that it actually went down. Let us have no more nonsense

from the Government, when we discuss the emergency powers next Tuesday, saying that they intend to hold down prices. They had better get a system to do it, because we do not trust the right hon. Gentleman.

We remember what he said. We remember his policy. It was clearly enunciated.

Mr. Torney: "At a stroke".

Mr. Buchan: Not just "At a stroke". That was his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but the right hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister did not mean that. I remember what the right hon. Gentleman said in a debate with me some years ago. He said that:
The time has come when we should have higher prices for food and no subsidies for either the agricultural or fishing industries.
This is why they want to cut out consultation. They want to wipe that out altogether. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
If we did that, we would get competition working in both industries and the nation would get better value because the nation has been molly-coddled for too long by receiving cheap food."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 2127.]
The man who comes to this Dispatch Box every few weeks to say how he is trying to keep down the price of food is a high-price theorist. He believes that the people of this country have been molly-coddled. This is why we need the new Clause, that is why we need to establish this kind of advisory board and that is why we need to restore consultative conditions—because we have to defend both the industry and the ordinary people against the bureaucratic, inflexible, rigid and doctrinaire policy of the Tory Party.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 116.

Division No. 334.]
AYES
[7.30 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Concannon, J. D.
Foley, Maurice


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Foot, Michael


Atkinson, Norman
Cronin, John
Gilbert, Dr. John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Deakins, Eric
Harper, Joseph


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Dormand. J. D.
Hefter, Eric S.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch, F'bury)
Edelman, Maurice
Horam, John


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Cohen, Stanley
Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)




Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Judd, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Strang, Gavin


Kaufman, Gerald
Moyle, Roland
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Kerr, Russell
Oswald, Thomas
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lamond, James
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Tinn, James


Latham, Arthur
Palmer, Arthur
Torney, Tom


Lawson, George
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wallace, George


Lestor, Miss Joan
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Whitlock, William


Mackenzie, Gregor
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mackie, John
Perry, Ernest G.



Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mendelson, John
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. John Golding and


Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Julius
Mr. James Wellbeloved.


Millan, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel



Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stallard, A. W.





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Benyon, W.
Hawkins, Paul
Paisley, Rev. Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Ian


Body, Richard
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bowden, Andrew
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bray, Ronald
Holland, Philip
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Brewis, John
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Redmond, Robert


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Reed, Laurance [...]Bolton, E.)


Chapman, Sydney
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rost, Peter


Churchill, W. S.
James, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clegg, Walter
Kilfedder, James
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Cooke, Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Simeons, Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Kinsey, J. R.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Costain, A. P.
Knox, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Crouch, David
Lamont, Norman
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Crowder, F. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sutcliffe, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dixon, Piers
Longden, Gilbert
Tebbit, Norman


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
McCrindle, R. A.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Drayson. G. B.
McLaren, Martin
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Emery Peter
Mather, Carol
Tugendhat, Christopher


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Angus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wall, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fowler, Norman
Moate, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Fox, Marcus
Molyneaux, James
Weatherill, Bernard


Fry, Peter
Money, Ernle
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Wilkinson, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morrison, Charles
Winterton, Nicholas


Green, Alan
Murton, Oscar
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey



Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Normanton, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gummer, Selwyn
Nott, John
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Gurden, Harold
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Michael Jopling.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7

GRANTS UNDER SECTION 61 OF AGRICUL- TURE ACT 1967 FOR CO-OPERATIVE SLAUGHTERHOUSES

'(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other enactments, grants may be made under section 61(1) of the Agriculture Act 1967 for the purposes of co-operation in providing slaughterhouse facilities for the preparation and marketing of livestock.

(2) Section 62(1) of the said Act shall be amended by adding at the end of that subsection the words "and the slaughtering, pre-

paration and marketing of livestock"'—[Mr. Mackie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I shall try to move it as briefly as I can, and in so doing I refer to the argument which arose in the last debate, which in some ways affects what I shall say. We know that the Government want to save the taxpayer money and that they have put a lot of money into the economy. But that money has caused prices to rise considerably. It has probably caused


more inflation than anything else and no one has benefited.
I move the Clause in the interests of the consumer, who has paid for the saving in taxation. On-cost figures for beef in this country between the time when it leaves the farm and reaches the shops average about 50 per cent. or more. I am not suggesting that this has anything to do with the Common Market but I have figures from various places in Europe which show that their on-costs for meat were about 30 per cent. or a little more. This was mainly achieved by farmers' co-operatives selling their produce direct from the farm to the shop. The Clause will bring similar advantages to British farmers. If Government grants given through the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation were extended to the provision of slaughterhouse facilities it would lead to the provision of more of those facilities. I would like co-operatives to be able to hire those facilities.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that if the end price is good enough farmers will be able to look after themselves, or that if it is a good thing for farmers to do they should do it without a grant. The Minister has said this repeatedly in debates; I think I have fairly paraphrased what he said. Many of the advances in farming since he became a farmer, and certainly in my lifetime, have happened because of the attraction of grants. There have been improvements in drainage, ploughing up, farm buildings and so on, and, however prosperous the farmer, none of this would have been done without the attraction of the grant. Maybe it could be attributed to psychology, but if the Clause were carried it would help not only the farmer but the consumer, too.
When we established the Central Council we gave grants towards the preparation and marketing of many farm products. This included grain, peas and potatoes. I cannot see that the preparation of those commodities is very much different from the slaughtering of meat. The slaughtering of meat, particularly beef, should come under the aegis of the Central Council, and the Minister should give it funds to do so.

Mr. Prior: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Enfield, East

(Mr. Mackie) has said. I do not want it to be thought that, in making the remarks I have made in the past and will probably make in the future about the need for the industry to look to the end price for its return, I do not think there are various facets of agriculture, fisheries and other industries in which subsidies or grants have an important part to play. In the last two years I have shown that I regard some grants as being important for the life of the industry. The hon. Gentleman mentioned drainage grants, cattle grant schemes, and so on, and these I have fully supported. I have also supported the making of grants for co-operative enterprises amongst groups of farmers.
The new Clause would place beyond doubt the power of Ministers to provide by a scheme for grants to be paid on co-operative slaughterhouses. Anything which helps to reduce the on-cost between the farm gate and the housewife's table should be encouraged, and for this reason I set up two years ago a committee under Sir James Barker to inquire into the whole system of contract farming. The committee has now reported to me. The report is being printed and it will be available towards the end of September. I have also been considering what steps the Government should take in their marketing policy and how this review will fit in with the policies being considered for greater producer co-operation in the Community.
The hon. Gentleman is asking for an extension in a scheme which was introduced by the Labour Government and was originally intended to help farmers to co-operate in activities which are normally carried out on the farm itself. Many of the vegetable co-operatives which have been set up are either on the farm or very close to the farm, generally where the products are used and where the co-operative benefits a small group of farms.
The European Community has before it a draft regulation dealing with assistance to producer groups, and the activities of groups which would qualify for aid if the draft regulation came into force concern the production and marketing of members' produce. Most are activities normally associated with farming, but there are some exceptions, including the


provision and operation of slaughterhouses to deal with members' livestock. The document is only a draft, and we shall be fully consulted on it. I would much prefer to wait and see the form that the regulation will take before proceeding further with this idea.
I am not unsympathetic towards the case which the hon. Gentleman is putting forward; it is worth considering. But I want to get it right in the context of Sir James Barker's report, in the context of the proposals we are considering for marketing generally and in the context of the Community's draft regulation. For that reason I do not wish to proceed with the idea at the moment, but I think the House will want me to look favourably at the whole question of producer co-operation and not necessarily to restrict it as it is being restricted now.
That is as far as I can go today, but I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman an indication that we are, broadly speaking, sympathetic to his case.

Mr. Mackie: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, he has never been afraid to give us an idea of the content of reports—for instance, the price review—before they are published. Would he like to say what is in Sir James Barker's report?

Mr. Prior: That would be improper. As I have told the House in a Written Answer, it is a useful report, but it needs to be seen in conjunction with other ideas which I hope to put forward by the time we return to Parliament after the recess.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Clause has been ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie). As always, his case was well documented and persuasive. He argued that the Amendment was important to producers and consumers alike, and that argument has been accepted by the Minister, whose response has not been unreasonable.
The Clause and the Amendment provide an opportunity for us to pay a well deserved tribute to Sir Roger Falk and his colleagues at the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Cooperation. With more help from the

Government the central council could have made more progress, and it is sad that producer co-operation has not received the impetus it deserves.
My views were explained at some length in an article which I contributed to the Business News section of The Times, in which I explained how, with the encouragement of the central council, farms in England and Scotland were being brought together. I gave examples of producer co-operation linking farms in the two parts of the country. I received several inquiries from West Germany after my article appeared. My correspondents felt that what the central council was doing was extremely important and could be of considerable value in West Germany.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take seriously the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West. All on this side of the House feel that producer co-operation should now be given a new impetus. I recall my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) saying that he took greater pride in having set up the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation than in anything else he did as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I believe that his initiative in setting up the central council will be seen in years ahead as an important achievement in our agricultural industry.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he will look sympathetically and constructively at the points raised in the debate. With the assurance that he has given, I feel sure that my hon. Friend will wish to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Mackie: I thank the Minister for his reply. Perhaps some of his hon. and right hon. Friends will not so warmly welcome his remarks about the linking with Common Market countries.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

ERADICATION OF BRUCELLOSIS

Mr. Prior: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 2, line 5, leave out Clause 1.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments No. 3 in page 2, line 39, at end insert:
() An animal slaughtered pursuant to the next following subsection shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (3) of the said section 17 (compensation) as having been slaughtered under that section and for the purposes of sections 19(5), (6) and (7) of the said Act of 1950 (ancillary provisions as to slaughter and compensation) as having been slaughtered under that Act at the direction of the Minister.
No. 31, in page 2, line 39, at end insert:
(7) As soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act, the Secretary of State for Social Services shall make an order prescribing as an industrial disease under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, brucellosis.
(8) Entitlement to benefit under the foregoing subsection shall be payable to all persons found to have contracted brucellosis because of occupational contact with bovine animals infected by brucella abortus, their carcases or untreated products, or with laboratory specimens containing brucella abortus, by reason of employment as a farm worker, veterinary worker, slaughterhouse worker, laboratory worker or in any other work relating to the care, treatment, examination or handling of such animals, carcases or products.
No. 32, in the Title, line 2, after 'animals', insert:
'to provide for industrial injury benefits to be payable to persons affected by brucellosis'.

Mr. Prior: I do not know in what way the House would like me to deal with the other Amendments which are taken with my Amendment No. 47 since they are Amendments to a Clause which I am proposing to remove from the Bill. Perhaps I shall be allowed to answer any points which arise in this discussion by making a short speech at the end of the debate, if that is in order.
I am sometimes accused by the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) of being dogmatic. Yet here I am coming to the House and asking hon. Members to remove a Clause of the Bill which the Government thought was essential for the brucellosis scheme and which received a general welcome at that time. There-

fore, I owe the House an apology for what perhaps might be considered to have been a waste of the valuable time of the House. I also owe the House a full explanation why we have taken this step.
The original compensation terms for compulsory eradication of brucellosis included the payment of replacement grants on slaughtered reactors and incentives on beef and milk from the time of the first test until one year after accreditation. In addition, the owner was given the responsibility of disposing of reactors, but retained the carcase realisation price. Although these terms were not to be applied compulsorily until November of this year, they were in the meantime offered on a voluntary basis to owners in the first eradication areas. We agreed with the Farmers' Unions in March, 1971, that the operation of the scheme during this "voluntary year" would be reviewed in 1972, with particular reference to its impact on heavily infected herds.
We carried out this review in the spring. In the course of that review it became clear to us that, particularly in view of the substantial increase in cattle prices during the second half of 1971, the existing compulsory terms needed revision and that owners of the more heavily infected herds had suffered significant losses. Nowhere was this more marked than in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), and I am delighted to see my hon. Friend sitting in on this debate. His constituents assembled in unaccustomed crowds to protest at the inequities of the Government scheme, and we tried to meet his criticisms. The terms also tended to operate inequitably between owners of herds of different types and breeds. The Farmers' Unions had made it plain to us that they felt that the fairest way to compensate herd owners whose stocks are slaughtered compulsorily is to relate compensation to the value of the animals concerned.
We therefore decided, after consultation with the unions, to replace the existing terms by a new scheme, which I announced on 19th May. This scheme will provide for the payment of compensation for reactors at the full market value during the pre-accreditation period, subject to a limit of £240 per animal. Valuations will be agreed with the owner or, in the absence of agreement, by an


independent valuer, and will be based on the non-accredited market value of the animal. In accredited herds—that is to say, herds which have become brucellosis-free—compensation for reactors will be paid at 75 per cent. of market value, but in these cases the animals will be valued as accredited animals and will be subject to a maximum payment of £180 per animal. The Government will take possession of the reactors, arrange for their slaughter and retain the carcase realisation price.
Under these new arrangements, the powers which Ministers would be given under Clause 1 of this Bill are no longer necessary. We shall not need to require owners to dispose of reactors, except by agreement under the voluntary incentives scheme, nor shall we need powers to pay compensation in a form unrelated to market value. Instead, we shall simply be acting in the future under the existing slaughter and compensation powers contained in Sections 17 and 19 of the Diseases of Animals Act and will be making the necessary orders later this year. Rather than put legislation on the Statute Book which will not be required, we have therefore decided to delete Clause 1.
I should make it clear that this in no way affects the pace of our eradication programme. My right hon. Friend and I have already announced the areas in Great Britain into which eradication will extend up to the end of 1973 and those further areas in which a start is likely some time in 1974 or 1975.
My right hon. Friend and I feel that we now have a scheme which is fair and which will be accepted as such by the industry as a whole. We are encouraged in this by the generous welcome and support which the National Farmers Unions have given to the new arrangements. Indeed, it would be impossible to eradicate this disease unless we were assured of the wholehearted co-operation of the industry in this most difficult of tasks.
In withdrawing this Clause, I apologise again to the House for having put hon. Members to the trouble of the long discussion which took place on an earlier occasion. I am grateful for all the trouble hon. Members took in the debate to let me know their views on what has

been perhaps an unsuccessful but genuine attempt to provide a new form of compensation, as a result of which we have found that we have now to go back to the original idea.

Mr. Mackie: We are indebted to the Minister for his explanation of the deletion of Clause 1. He has explained the matter very fully, and it is an excellent scheme.
The only point of criticism—and I must declare my interest in this subject because I have an accredited herd—is to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has provided for any system which will keep observation on values. The value of cattle has jumped to an alarming extent. Since the right hon. Gentleman made the valuation in May, the price of beef has risen by £20 to £50. Therefore, some system is needed to look at the situation as a whole, especially as we are so near to approaching Common Market values. The right hon. Gentleman will need to look at this matter again if he wants to be fair to the agricultural community.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The Minister is to be congratulated on putting into being a better system than the one which was originally proposed. He should not give the credit only to hon. Members on his own side of the House, since we have impressed on him the need to change the scheme if he is to get closer co-operation. The Farmbers' Unions in Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire—and I am speaking for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan)—have pressed the Minister on this matter. I remember attending one meeting at which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiganshire and I pressed for a closer alliance and the payment of more realistic compensation.
The Minister knows that Carmarthenshire and West Wales are heavily involved in the present scheme. I pay tribute to the farmers of West Wales for their great co-operation since they have again led the way. The right hon. Gentleman will recall the situation over TB-testing in which the farmers of West Wales and Carmarthenshire were the pioneers of that scheme back in the late 1940s.
8.0 p.m.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) about


keeping an eye on the market value of accredited herds. The NFU in Carmarthenshire wrote to me about this matter on 11th February, 1972. The Minister of State had this document during the meeting we had with him. The document states:
Accredited animals have been known to reach £250 in local marts and it is very difficult to get anything for under £200.
That was in February, not May.
I do not wish the Minister to detract from what he is proposing, but we must keep an eye on the market value of accredited herds. To fix a figure for May, 1972, when, according to the NFU in my county, it was out of date on 11th February, 1972, and to stick to that figure continuously for a year or so would bring us back to the scheme which operated before these proposals. The full compensation criterion would diminish if we stuck to what the Minister has proposed of £240 as the full market value for accredited herds with reactors at 75 per cent. of the market value with a limit of £180. If the Minister will look at this matter over the coming months and can then show that some relationship exists between market value and compensation, I am sure that the Farmers Unions in Wales would welcome the proposal.

Mr. Peart: I welcome the Minister's approach to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman need not worry about being chastised for being dogmatic. I recall that he sometimes accused me of being dogmatic. Earlier today the right hon. Gentleman said that he was pragmatic.
The Minister is right to come to the House and frankly admit that he does not need the Clause. We had a long debate on this matter in Committee. I would have participated in the debate, but I believe the right hon. Gentleman has taken the right and only action. After all, he has consulted the industry and looked into the matter very carefully. I welcomed the Minister's initial moves and am proud of the fact—I assure the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office, that I am not being conceited when I claim credit—that I started the voluntary scheme. I am glad the Minister has built on it. I hope that he achieves success.
We want to eradicate brucellosis. I have here an article from Community

Medicine of 21st July, 1972, which deals with a brucellosis outbreak in Peeblesshire which has affected five families of human beings. Therefore, it is an important matter for the community.
My hon. Friends have put points to the Minister concerning compensation. The right hon. Gentleman has made his case. We were to have a discussion on our Amendment No. 31 to Clause 1 which relates to compensation for people connected with the industry. Amendment No. 31 seeks, in page 2, line 39, at the end to insert the following:
(7) As soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act, the Secretary of State for Social Services shall make an order prescribing as an industrial disease under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, brucellosis.
(8) Entitlement to benefit under the foregoing subsection shall be payable to all persons found to have contracted brucellosis because of occupational contact with bovine animals infected by brucella abortus, their carcasses or untreated products, or with laboratory specimens containing brucella abortus, by reason of employment as a farm worker, veterinary worker, slaughterhouse worker, laboratory worker or in any other work relating to the care, treatment, examination or handling of such animals, carcasses or products.
We were thinking particularly of the veterinary worker, the slaughterhouse worker, the laboratory worker and, of course, the farm worker who is in daily contact with the herds. We believe that this would have been a useful addition to the Clause. Even though the Minister is withdrawing the Clause, I am sure that he will note the points we have made and bear them in mind. After all, the right hon. Gentleman may bring in a regulation concerning this matter.
I wish the Minister well with his scheme. I know that he will have the co-operation of the whole industry. I therefore advise my hon. Friends to accept the Minister's view.

Mr. Prior: With the permission of the House I should like to reply briefly.
On the right hon. Gentleman's last point dealing with Amendment No. 31, that brucellosis should be a prescribed industrial disease, I should point out that this has now taken place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has accepted the recommendation of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council that brucellosis should be prescribed as an industrial disease for the


occupations mentioned in the Amendment. The necessary regulations have recently been laid before the House and came into operation on 31st July. To that extent that point is covered.
Concerning values, we have agreed with the NFU to periodical reviews. It seems that the NFU will not be slow to put before us its views on when values should be reviewed. The success of the incentive scheme has been such that the reservoir of brucella-free cattle has not been building up sufficiently fast for those herds which need replacement. In some parts of the country the premium on accredited stock is quite considerable. While I am not suggesting that we shall have to slow down the scheme in any way, I think we must watch that we do not get accredited cattle values going through the roof.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Only two days ago my right hon. Friend's Ministry was able to issue an optimistic and encouraging statement about the latest returns, which showed that there was a considerable increase in the breeding herd. Does he know what proportion of the increase is in the accredited herds?

Mr. Prior: No. Our figures on the census returns are not accurate enough to tell us that. I should think that it is particularly in the accredited herds that expansion will come because farmers will recognise that the premium paid on their stock is considerable. Certainly many farmers are increasing the size of their accredited herds considerably. None of us likes the high prices we have had, but they are an indication of the demand for stock and, as such, are to be welcomed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) pointed out, the number of heifers in calf is up by 12 per cent. on a year ago and the number of beef heifers in calf is up by the fantastic amount of 52 per cent. on a year ago. That indicates that the industry is certainly expanding very rapidly.
I should refer to the voluntary incentive scheme. Just over two years ago about 15,000 herds were taking part in the voluntary accreditation scheme. Since that time the figure has increased to 65,000 herds. To go up from 15,000 to

65,000 in two years is a phenomenal rate of increase. It means that at least half the herds in the country are either accredited already or in the process of becoming accredited. We are getting on pretty well.
I conclude by thanking the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members for the way in which they have accepted the Amendment and assuring them that we shall be keeping a careful watch on prices. No doubt the NFU will be in touch with us. I am glad that the Amendment has been as well received in Wales as in Westmorland.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

CONTROL OF ZOONOSES

Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 3, line 10, at end insert:
() For the purpose of preventing the spread of zoonotic diseases and related health risks to persons involved in agriculture and the food processing industries the Minister shall establish a national advisory committee representing the medical and veterinary professions, farmers, landowners, farmworkers and the food processing trade empowered to undertake:

(a) research into zoonoses, and
(b) the preparation of recommendations to the Minister on matters of prevention, control and eradication.—[Mr. Buchan]

Mr. Strang: Hon. Members will recall that in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) was particularly interested in this question and there was a debate whether brucellosis was covered by the Clause. As has been said, when we talk about zoonotic diseases we are talking about important diseases which affect livestock, such as brucellosis, anthrax and Newcastle disease, and I do not think that anyone would want to minimise the serious effects which these diseases have on humans who are unfortunate enough to contract them.
Linked with this problem is the question of the use of antibiotics on livestock. While on a narrow definition one could perhaps not look upon this as a zoonotic disease it is, nevertheless, a similar problem, in that applying antibiotics on a substantial scale to livestock means that the micro-organisms in the livestock develop immunity to them.


These are then transferred to human beings dealing with the livestock, and the immunity of the micro-organisms which have been so transferred can then be transferred to the micro-organisms which may have developed in humans as a disease and antibiotics are no longer effective. To that extent the problem is similar to that of zoonotic diseases.
It is worth mentioning that a number of hon. Members, including myself and, more recently, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), have questioned the Minister about the importation of meat from countries which are able to use antibiotics on a scale which is prohibited here. The Minister has replied that although some of the meat coming into the country is produced in this way, it is only a small amount. I wonder what method the Minister uses to assess the amount. I wonder whether he is satisfied with the present situation. Should not we seek to ban the importation of meat which we suspect may be produced in this way? I wonder what the position will be when we enter the EEC? We have a much more strict approach to the question than do the Community countries and I hope that their standards will be raised to come into line with ours, rather than that ours are lowered in order to harmonise with the Community.

Mr. Deakins: Wishful thinking.

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friends who put down the Amendment thought that in order to deal with the importation of cattle given antibiotics and to deal also with the wider question of zoonotic diseases such as brucellosis and the problems facing those who have to deal with livestock it would be useful to set up a committee of this nature, and I hope that the Minister will make some conciliatory and sympathetic noises.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) put forward the case for the Amendment. I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because I did not realise that he intended to raise the matter of antibiotics as I did not think, strictly, that it was covered by the Amendment. However, I have taken note of what he said, and if anything in particular requires action I shall consider taking it.
The Amendment is concerned with zoonoses. We fully accept that there should be administrative machinery to investigate the risk to health of persons engaged in agriculture and the food processing industries from zoonotic diseases and for instituting suitable precautions where necessary. We do not, however, see the need to establish new machinery for this purpose, as there are already arrangements for considering occupational health problems, from whatever cause they arise, including those which might be associated with zoonoses.
We have to recognise that although the disease or infection may be carried through from live animals, from carcases or from animal products, the risks to which farm workers are subjected are different from those which affect people in the food-processing industries. This is largely because of the different environments in which the two kinds of workers operate, and therefore we have to look at the two problems separately.
Looking first at the problem as it affects agricultural workers, I can tell the House that we have recently reconstituted a working group which is charged with responsibility for investigating problems of the working environment. The group will function in much the same way as the national advisory committee provided for in the Amendment and will bring together representatives of various interests concerned with whatever problems are being examined.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is responsible for occupational health in all factories and other premises covered by the Factories Acts including those in the food processing industries, and the Industrial Health Advisory Committee largely fulfils the role of the committee proposed in the Amendment and could consider the problems associated with zoonoses.
I hope that the House will not think that I am being difficult or obstructive over this genuine Amendment. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's desire to see that the problems of zoonoses and the risks to people employed in agriculture and the food-processing industries are properly dealt with. I share the aim of the hon. Gentleman, but I am satisfied that the existing machinery is adequate


to do this job. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Buchan: In view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 15, leave out 'or to animals affected with it'.
I think that it may be convenient to take at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Ronald Russell): If that is agreeable to the House, so be it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This is a fairly technical Amendment. The purpose of subsection (2) is to enable the relevant powers of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950 to be used in respect of any disease of or any organism carried in an animal designated under subsection (1) as constituting a risk to public health.
Since the Committee stage we have been advised that subsection (2)(a) as drafted could possibly imply that the powers in the 1950 Act may be used only in relation to animals actually affected with a designated disease, and not to other animals which are suspected of being affected. Similarly, subsection (2)(b) could carry the same implication as regards animal carriers of designated organisms. Under the Diseases of Animals Act we are able, when necessary, to deal with animals that are affected with disease as well as with those suspected of being affected with disease. It is essential to cover both these categories of animal when the Act is used in relation to Clause 2. Therefore, the Amendments simply omit the words which would carry the implication we are anxious to avoid.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 3, line 20, leave out:
'and to an animal in which it is present'.
No. 8, in page 3, line 22, leave out:
'and the animal were affected with that disease'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 9

AMENDMENT OF LAW RELATING TO IMPROVEMENT OF LIVE STOCK

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 9, line, 38, at end insert:
(3A) The said Act of 1931 shall have effect subject to the provisions of Schedule (Licensing of bulls) to this Act, being provisions amending and modifying that Act in various respects and enabling its operation to be suspended by order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Ronald Russell): With this Amendment it will be convenient for the House to discuss Government Amendment No. 27 and sub-Amendment (a) thereto.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not intend to comment on the sub-Amendment, although in winding up the debate I should be pleased to answer any points raised.
These Amendments are concerned with bull licensing, a topic which occupied us for a considerable period in Committee and provided a great deal of interest and division, and which, for the first time in the Committee, cut totally across party lines. We had very full and interesting debates in Committee, which I have heard commented upon favourably outside the House by people who have said that there were Members of the House, in particular the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who have a knowledge of these things and who are able to speak on these technical matters with considerable authority.
However, at the end of the day in Committee, I am glad to say that the majority view, which was not reflected everywhere, was that the broad principles on which we intend to found future bull licensing are right. I think I am correct in summarising that the Committee accepted that until the more scientific methods of selection which are now widely used in the pig industry are generally used in the cattle industry, it would be desirable to continue licensing control to ensure that only bulls which are of sound conformation, free of defects and healthy are used for breeding.
The Amendments do not affect those broad principles, but they give effect to a very important aspect of the Government's


overall policy—that the Government should not provide services which can be provided by outside sources. In this instance, the Government have accepted the view of the veterinary profession that designated private veterinary surgeons in large animal practices can satisfactorily carry out bull licensing inspections. The Amendments will make this possible.
It may be helpful to the House if I explain some of the background, and I apologise in advance because this will necessarily be at some length. It may also help those outside the House who are interested in these matters.
The outline of the new system which we are to adopt for the licensing of bulls was determined at a meeting between agriculture Ministers and representatives of the industry and the veterinary profession held last August, when there was agreement in principle on arrangements under which the agriculture Departments would issue licences on the basis of a veterinary certificate to be obtained by the owner of the bull. Since last August, further meetings have been held with the profession and the industry to agree the details of the new arrangements. The new Schedule which is introduced by the new subsection (3A) to Clause 9 gives effect to those agreed arrangements.
The principal effect of the new Schedule is to enable agriculture Ministers to grant or to refuse to grant a licence on consideration of a certificate issued by a veterinary surgeon accredited for this purpose, by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association. The certificate which is provided by the veterinary surgeon will indicate whether the bull answers to the requirements of the 1931 Act—in other words, whether on examination it proved to be of sound conformation, free of defects and healthy.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was very concerned that the number of veterinary surgeons accredited to carry out bull licensing inspections should not be too restricted. I am glad to be able to say that the criteria which the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association have laid down for their panel will mean that about 1,000 veterinary practices will be eligible. I understand that the veterinary profession

has in mind a standard charge for a bull licensing inspection, and this will probably be £7 per bull.

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman says that 1,000 will be eligible. Will he state the total number of practices, so that we have some idea of the proportion of veterinary surgeons involved?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I cannot give the figure off hand, but I hope that by the end of the debate I shall be able to answer that question.
Continuing with the question of the cost of the licences, the profession has in mind a standard charge of £7. Additionally, the agriculture Departments will need to charge a licence application fee of about £1, possibly somewhat more, to cover their administrative and enforcement costs. The combined cost of a veterinary inspection and licence will be about £8. That is appreciably more than the present fee of £2·75, but, as we have made clear to the House in the past, the present fee is nowhere near in line with present costs. It would, indeed, have to be raised probably to significantly more than £8 if present bull licensing arrangements were to be continued.
In our consultations with the veterinary profession and the industry, they made it very clear to us that they were concerned—the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) was particularly involved with this point—lest a bull which had been turned down as unsuitable for licence by one veterinary practice might be submitted to another practice which was unaware of the fact that the bull had already been inspected for licensing purposes. To avoid such an abuse the last part of the Schedule provides that a veterinary surgeon who inspects a bull for licensing purposes must mark the bull to show that he has inspected it. Ministers are given power to refuse to grant a licence if the bull has not been so marked or if it has been inspected or marked by a different veterinary surgeon on a previous occasion. These are additional matters on which the veterinary surgeon will have to certify over and above the suitability of the bull for licence.
The House would not expect me to go into greater detail on these matters at


this stage. However, the form of the application and veterinary certificate, the design of the mark and the manner of marking will be prescribed and set out in regulations which will be subject to scrutiny in Parliament.
I turn to the question of appeals, another matter which concerned certain hon. Members in Committee. At present a bull owner aggrieved by the rejection of a bull for licence has a right of appeal to an independent referee selected from a panel which consists, in the words of the 1931 Act,
of persons appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of such agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies as the Minister thinks it expedient to consult.
I know from what was said in Committee and elsewhere that the House will want appeal provisions to continue. As initial licensing inspections are to be carried out by veterinary surgeons, it would be appropriate for referees to be appointed in future on the recommendation of the veterinary profession. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule makes that possible.
The third paragraph of the Schedule gives the Minister and the Secretary of State, acting separately or jointly, the power to suspend bull licensing. I must emphasise that these are reserve powers and that the Government do not contemplate using them without good reason. However, the House would obviously like to know the kind of circumstances in which they might be deployed. The time may well come when the cattle industry reaches the position that the pig industry has already attained, in which scientific data and methods are generally available for the selection of sires. But I do not think the time has yet come. That was the whole burden of my argument in Committee, when I even called in aid the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who counselled us not to be too hasty.
8.30 p.m.
Meanwhile, the new licensing regime represents in effect a voluntary agreement between the Government, the industry and the veterinary profession. My colleagues and I are very anxious to see the new arrangements given a fair wind. However, in the event that at a later stage either the industry or the profession

finds reason to seek their discontinuance, we would not feel it right to hold them to them. In such a situation we could not be expected, nor would we be prepared, to re-erect our own licensing system. It is primarily with that sort of situation in mind that we have thought it right and necessary to take the reserve power to put licensing in suspense.
With my knowledge of the industry and of many of the scientific arguments rightly advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, I commend the Amendments to the House and hope that they will be accepted. They embody proposals which have been worked out after considerable trouble in consultation with the industry and the veterinary profession, to whom they are broadly acceptable. They will permit a large measure of Government disengagement from bull licensing whilst they still allow statutory licensing control to continue.
I hope that with those few words the House will approve the Amendment.

Mr. Strang: I thank the Minister for the very helpful way in which he moved the Amendment. All of us who took part in the Committee debates appreciate the way in which he has genuinely tried to respond to the points put to him by a number of hon. Members on both sides.
The hon. Gentleman started by expressing the main reason why the Government believe that it is right to retain bull licensing. He repeated his argument that it was right because the cattle industry was not so far advanced in performance testing and other scientific methods. He is aware that I totally reject that argument, and am opposed to bull licensing.
I am a little disappointed that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not here himself, because I am sure that most people believe that he, too, would like to have scrapped bull licensing along with boar licensing. The Under-Secretary is shaking his head, which provokes me into telling the House that it has been suggested to me that that well-known agricultural expert, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) played an important rôle in the retention of bull licensing. But that is enough of that.
I want to deal seriously with some of the detailed points that the Minister has put to us in such a friendly manner. I should like a little more information on precisely how the certification system will operate. The Minister said that the certificate would contain information which corresponded to Section 2 of the 1931 Act, and he gave three criteria listed in that Act. But I should be interested to know whether, for example, the word "conformation" will appear on the certificate. Presumably it will. Will the veterinary surgeon have to give a score for conformation, or will it be a pass or a fail? Will that be the way in which all these criteria will be decided? Will the certificate be in a form in which the veterinary surgeon will say that the bull is not defective or inferior, and not apparently affected with a contagious or infectious disease which renders it unsuitable for breeding purposes? Or will the veterinary surgeon simply give some assessment and conclude with whether he recommends that it be licensed? It is not clear whether the veterinary surgeon has to come down one way or the other, although I assume that is what is intended, and that the certificate, when it is received by the Ministry, will simply state whether the veterinary surgeon recommends that the bull receives a licence.
It seems that the Ministry will not be obliged to accept the veterinary surgeon's verdict on the certificate. I am not suggesting that the Minister is likely not to accept the certificates on a large scale. Obviously the Minister's officials will not have time to look at the bulls. The whole point is that it should be done by veterinary surgeons. However, am I right in thinking that the Minister has the power not to accept the verdict on the certificate? It is a legal point, but it is worth placing on the record. If that is the situation, then I welcome it, although I should not expect the power to be used very often. The Minister is more likely to pass a bull which has been turned down than to turn one down which has been passed by a veterinary surgeon. Perhaps that is optimistic, but I hope that things are changing in Ministry circles.
I now turn to the number of veterinary surgeons who will be eligible to inspect bulls with a view to giving licences. The Minister said that 1,000 veterinary sur-

geons would be so licensed. I should be grateful if he could give the House an indication of the proportion of veterinary practices which will be able to operate under the system. The Minister is obviously under the impression that 1,000 is a large number. However, I should have been disappointed if the number had been any less. When one splits up that figure there will be 100 or 200 in Scotland and the others will be distributed on a county basis. It will not be such a large number of veterinary practices.
Will the local veterinary practice be able to inspect the bulls within the practice? Will the veterinary surgeon who goes regularly to a farm for a variety of reasons be able to inspect that farmer's bull? I hope that he would be able to do so. I know that it is not always desirable to have such inspections. However, when I used to inspect potatoes as a student, it was always desirable to inspect locally. I hope that the system will be sufficiently flexible so that a farmer can have his bull inspected by his own veterinary surgeon.
I come now to the question of appeal. The hon. Gentleman said that he felt that because veterinary surgeons were doing the inspections it was right that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should nominate the members on the appeal panel. Our sub-Amendment (a) is to the effect that the British Society of Animal Production should be required to nominate referees along with the Royal College and the cattle breeding societies. As I said in Committee, there is a good case for arguing that on the appeal committee there should be an animal geneticist. I am sure that many geneticists will agree that veterinary surgeons are not really geared to deal with this kind of geneticism, with the questions it raises of the genetic improvement of livestock populations. I hope that it will be possible to have some members other than veterinary surgeons on the appeal committee. For example, supposing there is a bull with a very high performance which nevetherless does not conform with the inspection requirements. An agricultural scientist would probably point out to the committee that the bull's very high performance should be taken into account and that it should be prepared to take a little less account of conformation.
In the new Schedule, the Minister takes power to suspend the operation of the 1931 Act. I was quite encouraged by the careful manner in which he chose his words. It seems to me that he is acknowledging that it may not be very long before he feels it appropriate to end bull licensing. I am not asking him to agree with that now but the tone of his remarks was that we have bull licensing in the meantime for the reasons he has given but that when the Meat and Livestock Commission and the other organisations are successful in having more tests and when more farmers are aware of the importance of rearing and using progeny-tested animals he will look carefully at the possibility of suspending the operation of the licensing system.
There are additional points that one can make on this matter but I recognise that it is a specialised subject and that other hon. Members want to discuss other parts of the Bill, so I will conclude with the hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer the points I have put.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Under-Secretary of State was much less brash and combative in moving the Amendment. The quiet rational approach suits him much better than the noise and rancour of his earlier speech. He was refreshingly reasonable and even constructive. As he said, there was very good debate when we discussed licensing in Committee. Many of us feel that the Committee was at its best in dealing with this part of the Bill. Fortunately, our debates in Committee have had a positive result. I argued in Committee that the Government's proposals were not satisfactory from the viewpoint of some important interests. My principal concern was to ensure full consultation with the veterinary profession and other interested bodies.
I serve on the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons as representative of the Privy Council. I serve also on the Royal College's Parliamentary Committee. This gives me a deep personal interest in the administration of the Government's proposals. I warmly acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has now consulted the Royal College, the British Veterinary Association, the National Cattle Breeders' Association as well as the National Farmers' Union

and the Milk Marketing Board since last July.
8.45 p.m.
Perhaps the House will forgive me if I quote the way I put the matter in Committee:
Where the industry and the veterinary profession appear to find the Ministry as yet unable to meet their viewpoint is in regard to the proposal that, whenever a veterinary surgeon enters a farm to inspect a bull, he should mark it in such a way as to indicate that an inspection has taken place … the marking of bulls to show that they have been inspected would make it difficult for the farmer, after the bull had failed at such an inspection, either to move it on to another farm in another area with a view to trying his luck with a second veterinary surgeon, or simply to unload it on to the market in the hope that it will be bought by some unsuspecting farmer who would not know that it had failed an inspection".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H. 14th March, 1972; c. 582–3.]
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman addressed himself to this point in his opening speech.
At one time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) sought to improve the advisory services available to the Minister by creating an independent advisory service under the late Professor Fraser. The body set up by my right hon. Friend has now been disbanded, yet the wisdom of his initiative is widely acknowleged throughout the industry.
While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his constructive response to the points which he made in Committee, I ask him again to reflect on the decision to disband the advisory service instituted by my right hon. Friend. At this point, however, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I welcome the Minister's Amendment.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) for the way in which he has welcomed the Amendment. I think that we have reached a sensible arrangement which meets the practicalities of the problems which were raised in Committee, and raised also by farmers, by the cattle breeders and by the veterinary profession.
I am grateful, also, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) for his remarks and the constructive approach of his speech. He asked about the form of certificate and, in effect, wanted to know


what matters would be taken into account. The British Veterinary Association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons have produced a joint memorandum which will be used as a guide for the veterinary examination of bulls for licensing. I shall be happy to let the hon. Gentleman have a copy of that guide. Rather than weary the House at this stage by going into it, I think it more appropriate to let the hon. Gentleman see the sort of factors which will be in the mind of the veterinary surgeons concerned.
Next, the hon. Gentleman asked about the number of eligible practices. So far as my information goes, the 1,000 eligible practices to which I referred represent about one-quarter of all veterinary practices, though the House will have in mind that when one speaks of all practices that includes small animal practices which deal only with cats, dogs, canaries and the like. I am sorry that I cannot be more definite at the moment than that. Perhaps the more realistic way of answering the hon. Gentleman's question is to say that all practices with not less than five years' experience on cattle work will be eligible.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Minister would have power to override the veterinary certificate. Legally, he would, but we do not envisage any general use of that power, though it would be available if it had to be used in an exceptional circumstance.
Could a farmer use his own veterinary practice? Yes, if it is an eligible practice, and he chooses to apply, he could use his own veterinary practice.
I turn to the point of substance in the hon. Gentleman's remarks; namely, sub-Amendment (a) to the Government's Amendment No. 27, which concerns the appointment of refrees. If a bull owner is aggrieved by the refusal to grant a licence, he may ask for a referee's inspection, and the referee can either uphold the decision not to grant a licence or decide that the bull is of licensable standard. Either way his decision is binding on both the Minister and the appellant. Referees will be appointed from a panel maintained by the Minister. The Amendment which the House has just approved will enable persons to be appointed to this panel after consultation with the veterinary profession.
Sub-Amendment (a) would enable referees to be appointed on the recommendation of the British Society of Animal Production. The hon. Member has made it clear that its main purpose is to secure the inclusion of animal geneticists on the panel. I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment because there are important and genuine objections to it. First, if the scheme is to work we must assure consistency of treatment between one case and another. This would not be secured if some appeals were heard by veterinary surgeons and others by geneticists. If that happened, differing standards would be in force and this could only lead to doubt and confusion. Secondly, there should be consistency of treatment between the initial inspection and the appeal. This would not be secured if the initial inspection were carried out—as it will be in all cases—by a veterinary surgeon but the appeal inspection were carried out by a geneticist. This again would create uncertainty for bull owners.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has in mind a compromise—for example, that appeals might be decided by a veterinary surgeon and a geneticist acting jointly. I will not go into what would happen if they were to disagree; there might be an appeal from an appeal, which would be awkward. There is a more conclusive objection; namely, cost. The fees we charge must cover the full cost of the work, and if appeals were to be heard by more than one referee there would be a risk of owners being deterred by the cost from invoking the appeal procedure. This is a risk which we should not incur.
The criteria against which bulls will have to be considered for licence are concerned with conformation or with health. I have mentioned the technical guidelines which will assist veterinary surgeons in making evaluations of bulls. These have been worked out by the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Insofar as some knowledge of genetics will be required, this is a science in which all veterinary surgeons have received training, and, what is perhaps just as important, their day-to-day experience gives them a very thorough understanding and grasp of the subject. That is certainly my experience of working with the veterinary profession.
The veterinary surgeons to be appointed to the panel of referees will all be men of considerable experience and high standing in their profession. I have every confidence that they will be able to deal both knowledgeably and impartially with the cases referred to them, not only on the general standards of conformation and health but when genetic considerations must be taken into account.
I respect the hon. Gentleman's motives, but I hope that his fears will be allayed by the standard of the veterinary surgeons who will be acting as referees. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his sub-Amendment.
There is one final point. The hon Member for Edinburgh, East, slightly teasingly, asked when we shall exercise these reserve powers, and he more or less implied "the sooner, the better." I have made no secret of my own position. I believe that when proper scientific standards are established and when they can be applied generally, as they are already in the pig industry, that is an indication of the stage at which we can consider reviewing the situation. We have not yet reached that stage.
I approach this matter in a realistic and practical manner. The scope for the development of performance testing is almost unlimited in the cattle industry. The more that the cattle industry takes this up, the sooner that the practical difficulties can be overcome and the sooner a system of proper scientific testing can be adopted. Many individual breeders have taken it up. I recognise that there are obstacles and difficultes. But I am convinced that it can only be to the benefit of our cattle industry and its improvement. It is because we have not reached that stage that we put forward these proposals.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

GRANTS FOR FARM IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 13, line 36, leave out 'seventy-five' and insert 'eighty'.
This Amendment seeks to increase the ceiling of grants for farm improvements from £175 million to £180 million. We

know what is happening to the improvement scheme. However, we are also concerned with what happens to the £ in the meantime. The rate of inflation that we have faced over the last year has been high. Since the Committee stage of this Bill we have had the floating of the £. As a result we wonder whether it is right to set the ceiling at £175 million.
We are dealing not with expenditure but with the controlled ceiling over expenditure. In any event, if the actual expenditure went up, I take it that the Government would have to find means of dealing with it. There is no reason why they should not err on the safe side by moving the ceiling to £180 million. It seems to be the logical thing to do.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The effect of the Amendment is to increase the ceiling on the amount of grant under the farm improvement schemes from £175 million to £180 million. Our latest reassessment of the position in the light of the most up-to-date information available gives us no reason to believe that the margin afforded by the increased figure of £175 million will prove inadequate. However, since there cannot be absolute certainty about the matter and since acceptance of the proposed figure of £180 million will not affect the amount of grant which will be paid, I am happy to accept the Amendment.
I might say that I was a little worried that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) might embark on a course which would have embarrassed me in accepting the Amendment. However, he did not. I accept the Amendment, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14

INCREASE IN ADVANCES TO AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION LTD

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 14, line 39, leave out 'five' and insert 'eight'.
I have a consequential Amendment—No. 36—to increase the total guarantee fund to £20 million.
In Standing Committee we argued that the amounts specified in several parts of


the Bill had been invalidated by inflation. There has been much more inflation since the completion of the Committee stage. Such has been the fall in the value of money that the right hon. Gentleman must re-consider his arithmetic. It should not be necessary for this side of the House to press the need for a revision of the figure in the Clause.
The debate provides us with a timely opportunity to pay a well-deserved tribute to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Ltd. I was with some of its leaders recently and was deeply impressed by the work they are doing for the industry. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, with rising values many farms are now under-mortgaged. It is essential to the future of the industry as a whole that the AMC should have sufficient advances. My right hon. and hon. Friends hope that the Government will see the need for an upward revision of the figure of £17 million.

Mr. Peter Mills: The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) has again had his little say about inflation.
We join the hon. Gentleman in the tribute he paid to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Limited. The AMC does a very good job. The recent changes made by it have been very helpful.
The hon. Gentleman proposes that the limit on total Government advances to the AMC be raised from £17 million to £20 million. The effect of the Amendment would be to enable the AMC to continue operating on the present funding basis for about a further five years rather than about three years. However, the difference between the two proposals is not of great significance. We believe that cover for three years would be adequate in the circumstances. I emphasise "in the circumstances", because in that time we shall be able to assess more precisely the amount and type of credit arrangements which will be best to suit the agricultural industry in the longer term. They need to be assessed and examined carefully.
When we came to power my right hon. Friend took the initiative in considering the industry's capital requirements and set up the committee under Professor Wilson to look into the whole matter of capital credit in agriculture. This was a

wise step, and we await with great interest the report of the committee.
Our going into Europe will have an effect on the situation. Therefore, we do not want to look too far ahead. It is right that we should be fairly conservative and careful—not too rigid—for there will be great changes in the years ahead and it is important to wait and see. We believe that we have got it about right.
The accounts for the AMC for the year ending 31st March which have just been published show an increase in reserves of £1·5 million. This will provide additional backing, and further debentures of at least £20 million could now be issued without the need for further Government help. In effect, it is expected that, at the present rate of demand, a £5 million increase is likely to be sufficient to meet the demand for rather more than four years. So the gap between us has narrowed considerably. It was three years, and now because of these reserves it is only four years.

Mr. Alfred Morris: This sounds more like a Treasury brief.

Mr. Mills: The hon. Member may have his fun. It is not a Treasury brief, I can assure him. It is a brief from the Ministry of Agriculture. It is right that he should look at this fairly carefully, particularly at future requirements and the effect of the Wilson Report. I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not take this matter further in view of what I have said.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 15

INCREASE OF FINES

Mr. Mills: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 15, line 2, leave out 'one' and insert 'two'.
In Committee we promised to take a fresh look at this and we have done so. When this Clause was discussed in Committee hon. Members on both sides questioned the adequacy of merely doubling the present maximum penalty for safety contraventions to the level of £100 which is now in the Bill. Perhaps I could have the attention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I was


about to pay a tribute to the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and his hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman is always doing that to us. I want to pay tribute to the reasonable and powerful way in which hon. Members opposite argued the case for the higher figure. They convinced us that we ought to take further counsel with those organisations interested in farming safety, and we have done so. We have acted.
We have consulted the NFU, the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, the National Agricultural Machinery Dealers' Association, ROSPA and the Transport and General Workers' Union. That is a fairly comprehensive review. We thought it right to send to each the full text of our debate so that they were aware of the nature and strength of the feelings of hon. Members on this subject, which is an important subject.
A word now about these consultations, because they obviously bear on the question before the House, which is whether the maximum penalties should be increased to £300 as suggested by hon. Members opposite or whether they should be £200 as the Government suggest. We consulted these organisations on the size of the penalties and there was not, as can be imagined, complete agreement among them. These differences, like those in our own debate, cut across sectional lines. There were different views between those representing farming employers and contracting employers and between those representing agricultural workers on either side of the border.
Briefly, a small minority favoured going as far as £300 or even £400. The majority, including those concerned exclusively with safety, questioned the wisdom of going beyond £100, while others believed that a further increase to £200 would be about right. What was perhaps more important was that no real case emerged for any form of differential penalties, for example between farmers and workers or between categories of offences. The House may agree with what appears to be a fairly general view among those we consulted, that these are matters that should be best left to the magistrates, and I hope that hon. Members will agree.
Nor was there any body of opinion which even suggested that there was anything to be gained by making analogies

with maximum penalties in other forms of safety legislation. Quite the reverse. It was widely and strongly held that there were special circumstances in agriculture which precluded any meaningful comparison of this kind. In any case, the other safety statutes are of varying vintage and on money values we should not be comparing like with like. The Government have accepted this view.
From our discussions and from our further examination of the problem the Government have concluded that the principle of a still higher maximum penalty as argued in Committee is right. Hon. Members on both sides, including the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and several others argued this forcefully.
There are two main reasons for the Government now proposing a further increase to £200, which is four times the present figure, as against the figure of £300 suggested by the Opposition. There would be an adverse effect from having too high a penalty. The Government are impressed by the weight of opinion from many quarters that safety observance on the farm, while calling for severe measures against culpable offences, must be built largely around instinctive acceptance of precautions which flows from education and advice widely and readily given. Education rather than severe penalties is the key to achieving greater safety, and the education must be developed and distributed.
Very real anxiety was expressed to us lest swingeing penalties might prove counter-productive by putting undue emphasis on punishment in a sector where the results we all wish to achieve depend so heavily upon interest and understanding. It is a question of pitching at the right level, and we believe that that level is £200.
The Robens Committee Report on Safety and Health at Work cannot be ignored. It was referred to in Committee and we indicated that any conclusions we reached about the nature and level of penalties would have to be reviewed in the light of that committee's work. The committee has recommended that maximum penalties for safety offences should be increased but it has also proposed fundamental and far-reaching changes in the Government's whole


approach to the safety of employed persons. The hon. Member for Mansfield is nodding his head, so at least he agrees with us on this. The committee considered that criminal proceedings were inappropriate for the generality of offences which arise in safety at work legislation and that they should be reserved for infringements of a flagrant, wilful or reckless nature with higher penalties for repeated offences.
This, with other recommendations in the report, calls for much consultation and discussion and I do not want to prejudice the outcome of those discussions tonight. However, it is clear that the level of penalty that we are discussing can be looked at again in the context of the Government's conclusions emerging from the study of the report. We are therefore prepared to look at this again and we hope that that will satisfy the Opposition.
There is a point about uniformity of penalties. Efforts have been made to get some sort of uniformity and standard fines of £20, £50, £100, £200 and £400. The Opposition's suggestion of £300 would not fit into this, and I am sure the House would wish to carry out recommendations on uniformity of penalties.
In the circumstances I hope that hon. Members will see in the Government Amendment a genuine effort to meet the conditions and wishes of hon. Members in Committee and that the Opposition will withdraw their alternative of an in-between penalty, because it is out of step with the desirable form of rationalisation to which I am sure we all subscribe.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Concannon: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the reasonable way in which he has outlined the Government's position. My hon. Friends and I agree with almost every word he said. Amendment No. 20 was put down as an insurance Amendment. At one time we thought the Bill would have been passed before the report of the Robens Committee was published, but, unfortunately, that has not happened. We reduced the figure in our original Amendment from £400 to £300—what is known as "an old Chinese bargain" in the trade union world.
As I said at the time, the Standing Committee demonstrated committee work at its best, and what has happened today confirms this. The Robens Report has unheld our arguments in Committee on workers' participation, safety education, and so on. We shall have to come back to the Robens Report during the next Session.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting down the Amendment, which we are pleased to accept.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

ABOLITION OF AGRICULTURAL WAGES COMMITTEES IN SCOTLAND

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 19, line 6, at end insert:
'; and a committee of representatives of farmworkers and farmers, chaired by a representative of the Secretary of State, shall be appointed by the Secretary of State to advise him on the discharge of these functions and to advise him on the working of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.
In your absence, Mr. Speaker, we have been proceeding with all sweetness and light—although I am sure that is not connected with your absence. I hope that we may get the same kind of response on this Amendment, at least from the junior Ministers opposite.
We discussed in Committee aspects of the abolition of the wages committee, and we are no longer seeking to reverse that decision because it would be improper for us to do so. Wages committees perform an important limited function in Scotland. Their functions are now to be taken over by the Secretary of State, and I regret that.
I had expected the Amendment to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), and I shall not necessarily be able to do so in the same depth as he would have done. If we are wiping out the agricultural executive committees, it is singularly inappropriate at the same time to wipe out the wages committees. One of their vestigial duties was to look into the question of disabled workers and the rates payable to them.
We have been told that the reason for the abolition of the wages committees is


to improve administrative efficiency. We cannot accept this as a reason. We do not put efficiency ahead of grass roots contacts and consultations. We must remember that we are dealing with a sensitive area. In 1961 there was a gap of £4 between the wages of industrial workers and those of agricultural workers; in 1971 the gap increased to around £10. There is roughly a third difference between the average industrial wage and the average agricultural wage, despite the fact that the output per farm worker increased by 7 per cent. over the last year, which was roughly double the increase in productivity to be found in industry.
Agricultural workers, who comprise 2·6 per cent. of the nation's labour force, contribute some 3 per cent. of the country's gross domestic product. We are therefore dealing with men who feel very sensitive about anything which will tend to remove their ability to join in committees with the rest of the industry so that they may bring pressure to bear. Therefore, we are seeking to amend this provision.
We have accepted with regret the fact that the wages committees are to go, but if these functions are to be transferred to the Secretary of State there must be some democratic involvement in decisions by the Secretary of State. It cannot be left merely to executive decision.
We suggest that the new committees should be composed of both farmers and farm workers and that they should advise the Secretary of State on how to carry out the functions of the wages committee and other functions of that wages board. This is not a major demand, but seeks to replace an element of consultation and involvement in industry which is now being wiped out—in my view, stupidly wiped out—by the Government. Therefore, we hope that the Government will accept our fairly modest proposal.

Mr. Strang: I wish to confine my remarks to the work of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. I contend that that board, like its counterpart in England and Wales, has been an absolute disaster. More than any other body it must carry the responsibility for the intoler-

ably low standard of living to which the farm worker has been subjected. There are exceptions, but the gap between farm workers and the average urban worker is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) said, about £10.
It is no answer to say that farm workers receive certain "perks" which make up for the difference. The report issued by the National Board for Prices and Incomes went into this matter in great detail and decided that these "perks" in no way compensate the farm worker for having to endure such a large difference in rates. It is absurd to suggest, for example, that a tied cottage is comparable with a council house in a village or nearby town. The tied cottage is part of the farm worker's job, and if he loses his job he loses his house. Furthermore, because the man lives in a tied cottage, his employers often are able to make demands which they would not be in a position to make if the man were living in his own accommodation.
I am not suggesting that all farmers are bad employers. On the contrary, some are very good. My point is that we have a wages board because farm workers do not constitute a section of the work force which has enormous bargaining power. They are not able to come out on strike as easily as other workers, because they are fragmented in terms of perhaps one or two farm workers on different holdings. We have a wages board to remedy that situation, but it has completely failed.
I realise that the Government are unlikely to accept the Amendment. However, if they see it as their responsibility to ensure that farmers have money to invest and receive reasonable incomes, they should accept the responsibility for seeing that farm workers also receive reasonable incomes. That means that something must be done about the wages board. It is intolerable that it should carry on as it does and reflect to such a large extent the attitude of the employers but not that of the farm workers regarding their wages and living standards compared with other sections of the community.
We have the ironic situation of farmers writing to the Farmers Weekly complaining that the wages board is fixing farm workers' wages too low and of branches


of the NFU taking up this cue. There is no more dismal commentary on the Agricultural Wages Board than that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I reject totally some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). I realise that from time to time complaints can be, and are, made about the level of farm workers' wages, and so on. However, the attack which the hon. Gentleman made on the Agricultural Wages Board, which is composed of representatives of both the workers and the employers and independent members, is totally unwarranted. That is not the substance of the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman's attack on the wages board is not justified by the facts. Neither is the impression he gives in speaking to this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the industry in giving the impression—I do not know whether he intended it—that almost everyone in the industry is earning the minimum wage. That is the impression which will go out from what he said. Members of Parliament are responsible not only for the precise words they utter but for the impressions they give. We should bear in mind that a large number of people in the industry are not on the minimum wage level.

Mr. Buchan: The Under-Secretary is being grossly unfair to the way my hon. Friend has handled the wages question over the last few months. In dealing with the comparative figures for wages between agricultural and industrial workers, my hon. Friend was referring not to minimum wages but to average earnings. Therefore, my hon. Friend was absolutely right, as I was earlier. It is most unjust of the hon. Gentleman to bring in this rather rancorous note at this stage of our proceedings when we are trying to conduct them calmly and quickly.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is no more unfair than making an attack on the wages board, which is unable to defend itself. It is up to those of us who are responsible to make sure the record is put straight. That is all I am endeavouring to do in dealing with that point. Criticisms may be made of the wages board in certain respects, but generally it works well. Responsible people serve on it.
Clause 23 abolishes the district agricultural wages committees in Scotland. We have proposed their abolition because, as we explained in Committee—I do not intend to go into the arguments again tonight—we believe that the need for their continuance has diminished to the point where their limited functions could easily be encompassed in the less cumbersome machinery within the Department. The Clause makes no change whatever in the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.
9.30 p.m.
The Amendment seeks to create an advisory committee to give advice to the Secretary of State not only about the discharge of the functions set out in the Clause but also about the working of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. Indeed, it goes far beyond the limited scope of the Clause. I see no reason for disturbing the present machinery of wage fixing in agriculture, a procedure which is well established and respected by both sides of the industry.
The Board, which is an independent statutory body, provides an efficient means of establishing minimum rates for workers in an industry as fragmented as this industry is. The board is representative of both sides of industry. It has a balance of independent members, and successive Governments have been careful to maintain the independent and impartiality of their nominees. The chairman has always been a highly praised member of the legal profession, and in Scotland he happens to be the Lord President of the Court of Session.
The fact to which the hon. Gentleman should pay attention is that neither the workers' nor the employers' side has shown any wish to change the composition of the board. In those circumstances, I cannot see that any useful purpose would be served by the creation of an advisory committee similar to that of the board which would advise on the working of the board. This could only undermine the board's standing and effectiveness in the discharge of its statutory functions.
In so far as the purpose of the advisory committee is to help the Secretary of State in administering the former functions of the agricultural wages committees, I cannot see any justification for it


on that ground either, because the remaining functions of these committees—I dealt with this in detail in Committee and I do not want to go over it again tonight—are to be transferred to the Secretary of State, and the administrative procedures have been agreed by both sides of industry.
Essentially what is at issue tonight is the consideration of applications by individuals for exempt terms from statutory wage levels in respect of handicapped workers, because that is the one thing that is left. I hope that I may reassure the hon. Gentleman by telling him that before a decision is reached in an individual case, should difficulties arise my Department will convene a panel locally, representative of both sides, to consider the case. I give that assurance, and I hope that on that basis the hon. Gentleman will see that the advisory committee which he is suggesting will not be necessary. In those circumstances, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 28

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 20, line 40, after '11', insert '12'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

New Schedule

LICENCING OF BULLS

Determination of applications for licences on basis of certificates of suitability

1.—(1) Regulations under section 11 of the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act 1931 may require an application for a licence under that Act in respect of a bull to be accompanied by a certificate in the prescribed form containing—

(a) the prescribed particulars as to the suitability of the bull for a licence under that Act; and
(b) such other particulars as may be prescribed,

being a certificate issued by a veterinary surgeon who is a member of a panel appointed for the purposes of this Schedule by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association acting jointly; and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, decide whether or not to refuse to grant the licence on any of the grounds mentioned in section 2(2) of

that Act on a consideration of the certificate and without himself causing the bull to be inspected.

(2) A veterinary surgeon who inspects a bull with a view to the issue of a certificate for the purposes of an application for a licence under the said Act of 1931 shall mark the bull with a prescribed mark in the prescribed manner.

(3) The Minister may refuse to grant a licence under the said Act of 1931 in respect of a bull—

(a) if he is not satisfied that the bull has been marked in accordance with the sub-paragraph (2) above on the occasion of its inspection by the veterinary surgeon who issued the certificate accompanying the application  or
(b) if it appears to him that, before that inspection, the bull had already been inspected for the purposes of an application under that Act by a different veterinary surgeon or been marked in accordance with that sub-paragraph.

(4) In this paragraph 'the Minister' and 'prescribed' have the same meaning as in the said Act of 1931 but no regulations shall be made prescribing a mark or manner of marking for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above except on the joint recommendation of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association.

Appeal referees

2. In section 5(2) of the said Act of 1931 (which provides for a panel of referees appointed on the recommendation of agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies) for the words 'and cattle-breeding societies' there shall be substituted the words 'cattle-breeding societies and associations of veterinary surgeons'.

Power to suspend operation of Act

3.—(1) The relevant Minister may by order suspend the operation of the said Act of 1931 from such date as may be specified in the order until such later date as may be specified in that order or in a further order under this paragraph; and—

(a) if the Act is so suspended—

(i) any licence, permit, notice or regulations in force, or application pending, under that Act on the date of suspension shall lapse;
(ii) the suspension shall not affect the taking or continuance of proceedings in respect of any offence committed, or liability for costs under section 6 of that Act incurred, before that date;

(b) if the suspension comes to an end the Act shall operate as if references in it to 'the appointed day' were references to such day after the ending of the suspension as the relevant Minister may by order appoint and as if the definition of that expression in section 13 of that Act were omitted.

(2) Any order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument; and any such


order made otherwise than under subparagraph (1)(b) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(3) In this paragraph 'the relevant Minister' means—

(a) in the case of an order applying only to England and Wales, the Minister;
(b) in the case of an order applying only to Scotland, the Secretary of State;
(c) in the case of an order applying to England, Wales and Scotland, the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 2

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) ACTS 1928 TO 1954

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 22, line 40 leave out 'subsections (3), (5) and' and insert:
'subsection (3); in subsection (5), the words from "and" onwards, and subsection'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Schedule 5

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 29, line 45 leave out 'subsections (3), (5) and' and insert:
'subsection (3); in subsection (5), the words from "and" onwards; and subsection'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Order for Third Reading read.

[Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales's consent signified]

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Prior: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not think that there will be many who will disagree when I say that the Bill has been carefully and, I think, considerably examined by the House. We spent the best part of fifty hours in Standing Committee discussing the 28 Clauses and five Schedules, and we have spent just about another six hours on the Bill today. I think that we now have a better Bill, and I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the part that they have played in making it so.
We have had some interesting debates. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) is not with us now, but he has other business to attend to. The major part of our time has been devoted to slaughterhouses, and the hon. Gentleman played a major part in dealing with them. We also discussed sire licensing and the provisions to abolish AECs, and I shall come to deal with much of this shortly.
I should not be in order now in referring to the eradication of brucellosis because the Clause has been withdrawn from the Bill. But I am grateful to the House for the way in which it has accepted the reason why I felt able to withdraw the Clause.
Turning to the question of slaughterhouse policy, which is dealt with in Clauses 6 and 7, these Clauses certainly qualify as the most controversial Clauses in the Bill. They were most thoroughly debated. We spent six sittings in Committee dealing with them. Yet I fear that there is still a great deal of misunderstanding about the objective of the Clauses. I should like, therefore, to emphasise once again that they do not affect hygiene standards. On the contrary, they have the effect that no licence should be granted or renewed unless the requirements of the regulations are fully complied with; and they are not expected to lead to any proliferation of slaughterhouses. Their objective is to remove a control which has proved to be ineffective in its operation and to create conditions which will ensure that in the future, which no one can properly predict, we shall get slaughterhouses of the kind we need, where we need them.
In Clause 9 we are seeking to reduce Government intervention in matters concerned with livestock improvement and to give breeders greater freedom to exercise their own judgment. Our proposals have been worked out after full and prolonged consultation with the industry and veterinary profession and are broadly acceptable to them. The Clause abolishes boar licensing but retains bull licensing in a modified form. This has been criticised as illogical. But in fact it is a rational and pragmatic decision based on the different stages of development reached by the pig and cattle industries. Selection of sires on the basis of performance and progeny testing is widely


accepted and used in boar breeding but is not nearly so widely in use in the cattle industry. So it is wise to continue with safeguards against unsuitable bulls until the more scientific methods now widely used in boar breeding are also generally used in the cattle industry. Meantime, the bull licensing arrangements are simplified so as to give breeders a wider freedom of choice, and Government intervention will be reduced by the provisions which enable inspections to be carried out in future not by Government officials but by veterinary surgeons in private practice who have been accredited for this purpose by their professional bodies.
The Clause also removes the restriction on imports of breeding animals which have hitherto been permitted only for "exhibition or other exceptional purposes". Of course, the veterinary controls over imports will continue to be enforced in their full rigour, and inevitably this will limit the number of breeding animals which can be imported. But the industry itself will be responsible for advising us on priorities through an independent industry-based panel which the Royal Agricultural Societies have recently established for that purpose.
I now turn to Clause 22. Since their inception the Agricultural Executive Committees have done a tremendous amount of useful work. Although their functions have progressively diminished over the years, I agree very much with all that has been said today and in the past about their contribution to the system of two-way communications between Ministers and the grass roots of the industry. So I should like to assure the House that, in making our arrangements for the new panels that will be set up following the abolition of the AECs, we have fully recognised the need for Ministers to keep in close touch with the views of all sides of the industry as part of the consultative process. I am satisfied that the panels will carry out this task effectively, and at only a fraction of the cost of maintaining the existing committee structure.
It is always difficult to know whether it is right to abolish a certain state of affairs which has existed for a long while. We were finding that the powers of the AECs were diminishing and the job that

the AECs had to do was becoming very much a diminishing rôle. I believe that the regional panels, with the chairmen of the panels who are really acting as my liaison officers, will be able to perform an extremely useful job, and this in no way detracts from the very great work done by the old War Agricultural Committees and then the Agricultural Executive Committees which took their place.
Finally, a word about farm safety and one of the four new Clauses. We have had two extremely interesting debates on Clause 15, which increases the maximum fine for breaches of farm safety. I whole-heartedly endorse the remarks made by many hon. Members stressing the importance of continuous vigilance against accidents on the farm. In particular, the more complicated farm machinery becomes, the more potentially dangerous it is. Looking back over the past 10 years, we see that a great deal of progress has been made in this respect. The Government are concerned that there should be full understanding, acceptance—and above all observance—of the safety regulations.
There is one other matter I should like to mention, the measures for dealing with grey squirrels and coypus, which I believe will be a significant step forward in saving our hardwood trees and the river banks drainage systems in East Anglia from further damage. Doing something to help our hardwood trees is particularly important for environmental and amenity reasons, but is even more important with the ravages of Dutch elm disease. We shall not permit the use of any poison in any area until we have discussed our proposals with conservation and animal protection interests, and until their use has been cleared by our expert Advisory Committee on Pesticides and other Toxic Chemicals.
Both Houses will have opportunities to consider our proposals in detail. I hope to be bringing our proposals for grey squirrels forward for consideration early in the next Session, but we have more field experiments to do before we shall be ready with suggestions for coypu.
This is not perhaps the most controversial Bill of this Session, although at times it has had its moments of controversy, but it is a useful Bill. It contains


a number of small measures but measures which are important to an industry to which everyone in the House pays a warm tribute. I am grateful to the House for the support it has given it and the care with which the Bill has been discussed. I commend the Bill to the House.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Peart: We shall not oppose the Bill's Third Reading. We have had Divisions earlier, and our point of view has been adequately represented by my colleagues. Conservative hon. Members accused my hon. Friends and me of delaying the Bill unnecessarily in Committee. They said that we were filibustering. I do not think that that was so. In fact, we encouraged progress on the Bill.
I rather liked a remark made by the Parliamentary Secretary. Incidentally, may I say that I did not mean to be churlish when I forgot to mention him earlier. I wish him well in his new position. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to say this, and he knows that I mean it sincerely. However, I was rather amused when he said that he believed the Opposition were making a mistake. He said:
They can discuss these things fully at a later date, but let us get on with the urgent business that is required by the consumer, by agriculture and by animals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 27th January, 1972; c. 13.]
—in that order. I hope that I am not doing him an injustice.
I once had an injustice done to me by the previous Parliamentary Secretary, who has now been promoted. Winding up a debate on agriculture not long ago, he quoted from a speech of mine, but it was not a single quotation. He joined up extracts, which gave a different sense to what I said. That was a very dirty trick—and I mean that. For example, I talked about the Ministry's needing to have control at Department level in the Scottish and Welsh Offices. I said that I would like to consider that carefully, because we must be cautious, but that we must be adventurous about new breeds. That was quite different to the quotation that he read out. I am sure the present Parliamentary Secretary will never do a trick like that.
It is true that we have had a long debate on the matter. It was the first

time for 20 years that such a Bill had been introduced into the Lords. I made the point on Second Reading that the Government were in difficulty with their legislative programme. The delay which has occurred over the Bill has been due to that difficulty, and that is why we are debating the Bill in August. The Bill should have been completed a long time ago. It is the fault not of the Opposition but of the inefficiency of the management of Government business. I am not blaming the Department as it is a matter outside its control. However, I am sure that my point of view is understood.
I recognise that there have been controversial aspects of the Bill. We have carefully scrutinised the Bill in Committee and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends Members for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) and Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) who sat on the Committee. They made some very effective speeches, and Ministers and hon. Members opposite were generous in their praise of their constructive approach when we sought to discuss the Bill in detail.
I have listened to many agricultural debates in the House since 1945. I must say that the skills and abilities of my hon. Friends show that we have one of the best teams I can remember. I am thinking not about myself but about my hon. Friends' contributions. It is good for agriculture because a strong Opposition is vital for the wellbeing of the industry. I held that view when I was a Minister. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) also played an effective rôle when he was in Opposition. Let us hope that the hon. Gentleman will soon go back to that rôle.
It is true that there has been controversy over slaughterhouse policy. I am sorry that we have not been able to convince the Minister, even at this late hour, that there should have been an inquiry. The Minister has argued the case against an inquiry. He has stood by what he has decided and not budged an inch. On the other hand, he had made concessions here and there on brucellosis. We recognise


it was right for him to go to the House and withdraw the Clause. We were accused in Committee of delaying this part of the Bill, but we now see that that was not so.
I am sorry that we have destroyed the county committees. I feel passionate about them. The Under-Secretary of State accused me of being a Conservative and accused my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West of being an Anarchist. I regard the hon. Gentleman as a Tory Anarchist. He is not a Conservative in the best sense of traditionalism. However, I am a conservative Socialist, and I am not afraid to admit it.
The EEC Bill will affect this Bill. I dealt with that matter when we discussed the county committees and the need to have adequate advisory services whereby Ministers would be able to know what is happening in the industry. It is important that the consumer and those in the industry who contribute to the work and development of the industry should have their views known by the Minister and those who make decisions. Even though it is not in the Bill, and I appreciate I will be out of order if I develop it too far, inevitably looming over these matters is our entry into Europe. Our decisions could be taken out of the hands of the House by the bureaucracy in Brussels. If I feel worried about that as a parliamentarian it is because I desire to protect British parliamentary traditions and, above all, to make sure that British farming is not harmed by people outside this country.
I welcome parts of the Bill such as the Clause on amalgamations. I welcome the improvement grants which are examples of policies which we pursued when we were in Government. Reference was made to the central council dealing in co-operation. That was one of the finest Measures any Government have introduced. I know that that desire for increased co-operation is so important, especially if we have to go into Europe.
We shall not oppose the Bill on Third Reading. We have made our position clear on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. We have been constructive because we, as much as the Government, believe that agriculture is an important industry which affects the well-

being of the nation and, therefore, has to be safeguarded and developed further.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

GAS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2

PRINCIPAL DUTIES AND POWERS OF CORPORATION

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 9, leave out "and" and insert "including".

9.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient to consider at the same time Lords Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 10, after "provision" insert "power".

Mr. Emery: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by paying tribute to a Member of another place who played a prominent part in the passage of this Bill there, and whose speech on the Bill there was interrupted by his collapse, which was followed by his death. The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith—Charles Smith as he was—had a distinguished career concerned with the Post Office, with Parliament and with many good works, and his loss at a very early age is something which I am sure the whole House deeply regrets.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Emery: Lords Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are intended solely to make the Bill more readily understandable. I was myself satisfied that Clause 2(2) as drafted carried out the intention that the specific powers of the Gas Corporation, listed in sub-paragraphs (a) to (h), were only particular examples of the corporation's general power to carry on any activities
…requisite, advantageous or convenient … for or in connection with the discharge of …


its primary duty, and that these were not independent powers. However, following reconsideration of the wording, which I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) on Report, and although I still think that our intention would have been satisfied by the original wording, as I have no pride of authorship I have concluded that his suggestion would make it beyond any doubt clear—hence these Amendments.

Mr. Eric Varley: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the tribute he made to our late noble Friend, Lord Delacourt-Smith. We all mourn his sad passing. He carried the full burden for the Opposition of the Gas Bill in the House of Lords and did an excellent job. I feel his loss a great deal personally because I was appointed as a Minister to the Ministry of Technology on the very same day as he was. I extend on behalf of the Opposition our sympathy to Lady Delacourt-Smith and rest of the family.
We support the Amendments. We think that they help to clear the matter and represent a modest improvement. I should imagine that they are also welcomed by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet).

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I cannot allow the occasion to pass without expressing gratitude to the Minister for listening to the arguments which I adduced at an earlier stage and for making these modifications. We now have clearly prescribed the limits within which it will be "requisite, advantageous or convenient", in the words of the sub-section, for the Gas Corporation to carry on activities. The intention is made clear that the corporation should not go into petro-chemicals unless a very clear view is formed about it. The matter is now beyond doubt, and I thank the Minister for his concession.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 4, line 4, after "gas" insert "or".

Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time Lords Amendment No. 4 in page 4, line 5, leave out from beginning to "manufacture" in line 6 and insert "(iii)".

Mr. Emery: In our earlier proceedings, arguments were advanced for removing the prohibition on manufacture by the Gas Corporation of gas fittings for export. Although I gave no undertaking, I thought it worth whole that the matter should be looked at again, since, obviously, in this instance, if there were any production made specifically for the home market in which there was, perhaps, some over-run which could be sold abroad, one should see that that could be done.
It seemed to me, therefore, that it made sense to acknowledge that the different points and arguments which had been put tipped the balance, I thought it right that that possibility should not be frustrated by the wording of the Bill, and that such manufacture could be carried out, with the consent of the Secretary of State.
These Amendments are the outcome of that decision, and I hope that they commend themselves to the House.

Mr. Varley: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. The Amendments make a modest improvement in the Bill, and in that sense we welcome them.
When the Bill left this place, the circumstances in which fittings manufactured by the Gas Corporation could reasonably be exported were unclear, and the wording of the Bill, in our opinion, was much too rigid. As we now understand it, the corporation would only need the Secretary of State's consent to manufacture for export if it considered it to be requisite, advantageous or convenient, to use the words of subsection (2) and if it deliberately set up a line of manufacture of fittings for export.
As we have said before, there is now a world-wide interest in the expanding British gas industry, particularly through the Gas Council's international consultancy service, which could lead to a great demand for British gas technology. In these circumstances, the manufacture of fittings, apparatus and appliances for export could be of immense advantage


to the corporation and to the country. If that should happen—we hope it will—it would be our hope that the Secretary of State would gladly give his consent to the corporation so that it could go ahead and manufacture for export.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39

APPLICATION OF PIPE-LINES ACT 1962

Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 33, line 35, after "above" insert:
but subject to subsection (3) below".

Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time Lords Amendment No. 6, in page 33, line 44, at end insert:
(3) The application by virtue of subsection (2) above of the said section 27(1) and the said section 31(1) to a particular part of any pipe-line shall be dependent upon there having been previously deposited with every local authority in whose area the part lies, either by the Corporation or, before the appointed day, by the Gas Council or an Area Board, a map, on a scale not less than 1 in 10,560, showing the route taken by the part.
A local authority holding a map relating to a pipe-line vested in the Corporation shall keep the map at their offices, and shall secure that it is open to inspection by any person at all reasonable times free of charge.
In this subsection "local authority" means—

(a) in England and Wales, the council of a county, county borough or county district, the Greater London Council, the council of a London borough, and the Common Council of the City of London, and
(b) in Scotland, a town or county council."

Mr. Emery: Clause 39(2) applies to gas industry pipelines certain provisions of the Pipe-lines Act which are designed to protect pipelines laid according to the terms of that Act from damage which could possibly arise from the erection of buildings or the deposit of materials too close to the pipeline. The Amendments recognise that in certain circumstances this could create difficulty.
Lords Amendment No. 6 is designed to help those concerned to find out

whether a gas pipeline crosses any piece of land by encouraging the deposit of maps with local authorities. I am glad to be able to say that the lines of these Amendments have been the subject of consultation with the local authority associations, which have agreed with them, and I hope that the House will now agree to accept them.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

It being Ten o'clock, consideration of the Lords Amendments stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Gas Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.

GAS BILL

Lords Amendments again considered.

Clause 40

MEANING OF "OPERATIONAL LAND" IN PLANNING ACTS

Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 34, line 2, leave out from "section" to "which" in line 3 and insert:
212 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972".

Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment reflects the passage through Parliament recently of a Bill consolidating Scottish town and country planning legislation which is intended to come into force well before the appointed day under the Bill. We are therefore coming into line with that legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

THE CONSUMERS' BODIES: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 49, line 27, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 29 and insert:
There shall be paid such pensions, or arrangements shall be made for the payment


of such pensions, to or in respect of persons who are or have been in receipt of remuneration under sub-paragraph (1) above as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service determine; and if a person in receipt of remuneration under that sub-paragraph ceases to hold the office by virtue of which he receives it".

Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It will, I think, be convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 9, in page 50, line 11, leave out "the said paragraph 2" and insert "those paragraphs".
These Amendments conveniently go together, because the second is consequential on the first. The Amendment makes it possible for the chairmen of the national and regional gas consumers' councils, if paid, to receive a pension in accordance with the determination of the Secretary of State made with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service. At present the chairmen of the gas consultative councils could be paid a pension because they are ex officio part-time members of the area gas board.
However, it has not been general policy to pay pensions to part-time members of the public boards, and no pensions have been paid to part-time members of gas boards. It is now thought desirable not to let the possibility disappear. In other words, if we did not have these Amendments the possibility which exists under the present legislation would not be possible under the Bill when it becomes an Act.
The Government have no intention of altering the present situation whereby no pensions are paid to these part-time men and women who give great service to the community in serving as chairmen of what will be the consumers councils. However, it seemed to me absurd that we should not have the power to do so if their rôle changed in future or if circumstances altered. Without such a power, new legislation would have had to be introduced. This seemed to me to be a weakness in the Bill.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I do not think that their Lordships gave as much attention to consumer questions as we did in Committee and on Report. We on this side believe that the consumer councils were extremely important bodies and were likely, under the new structure

of the industry, to be more important in future, particularly perhaps the new National Consumers' Council for the gas industry.
We argued in Committee that the chairman of the National Consumers' Council should be an outstanding individual with a status equal to that of members of the Gas Corporation. We believe that he should be strong enough and determined enough to stand up to the Gas Corporation. I went as far as to say that if salaries were being paid his salary should be no less than the salary of an ordinary member of the corporation.
In the event of the chairman of the consumers' council being displaced from office, the Bill provides, at the discretion of the Minister, that compensation may be paid him. That is reasonable, and I suppose that it is equally reasonable in some circumstances that there should be a provision in the legislation for a pension to be paid him. I concede that for the chairman of the national council, but I am not so sure that that is a good principle to follow in respect of the chairmen of the regional consumers' councils.
I do not think that one can be against this permissive power being included. However, in Committee we argued that the chairmen of the consultative councils should be elected. We felt that this would give them democratic authority and make them directly responsible to local public opinion. Clearly, in those circumstances it would not be appropriate for a pension even to be considered. I am still of the opinion that we do not want any interlocking of the fortunes of the chairmen of consumers' councils and those of the industry. If we provide pensions for them they will be confirmed in their standing in the industry and, in some circumstances, it might be difficult to get rid of them.
While we do not object to this power being in the legislation, in view of our earlier argument that the chairmen of consumers' councils should be responsible to their local consumers, we doubt whether we should make their lives so comfortable that they can look forward to pensions.
With those reflections, we raise no objection to the Amendment.

Mr. Emery: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might deal with one point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer).
Incidentally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say what a pleasure it is to be under your chairmanship in the Chamber on what for me is the first time?
I go along with the hon. Member for Bristol, Central to some extent in that I do not see any position in which the chairman of a consumers' council would be pensioned. I agree that there is more argument for the chairman of the national consumers' council than there is for the chairmen of the area consumers' councils. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I thought that he would wish to know that.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: No. 9, in page 50, line 11, leave out "the said paragraph 2" and insert "those paragraphs".

Schedule 4

GAS SUPPLY CODE

Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 51, line 18, at end insert:
() The powers of the Corporation under sub-paragraph (1) above shall include power to erect in any street one or more structures for housing pressure governors, but only with the consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, of the highway authority or other person having the control or management of the street.
Any question whether or not consent to the erection of such a structure is unreasonably withheld shall be determined by arbitration; and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, the withholding of consent shall, to the extent that it is based on the ground that the structure ought to be erected elsewhere than in a street, be treated as unreasonable if the Corporation show either that there is no reasonably practicable alternative to erecting it in a street, or that all such alternatives would, on the balance of probabilities, involve greater danger to life or property.

Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It implements an undertaking that I gave in Committee when the Opposition moved an Amendment to permit the Gas Corporation to erect in streets structures for housing pressure governors, otherwise known as governor kiosks.
Pressure governors are apparatus for regulating the flow and reducing the pressure of gas, especially to the low pressures appropriate for final distribution or supply to the consumer. They are essential in regulating from main line supply to consumer supply. A considerable number of governors have already been installed by the gas industry, and a number of these structures have been erected. However, some doubt has arisen as to the industry's power to erect these structures in streets, and clarification is desirable. This is what the Amendment secures. I am grateful to the Opposition for the discussion they inspired in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 7

SAVINGS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 80, line 9, at end insert:

Compulsory purchase

Anything done before the appointed day for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, the compulsory purchase of land, or rights over land, by the Gas Council or an Area Board under section 11 of the Gas Act 1948 shall have effect as from that day as if done for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, the compulsory purchase of the land or rights in question by the Corporation under Schedule 2 to this Act

Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It makes obvious sense to consider at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. Amendment No. 11 is a transitional Amendment to ensure that the Gas Corporation, once it is in existence, does not have to waste everybody's time and effort by re-starting proceedings on any compulsory purchase order made by its predecessor and not confirmed before the appointed day.
The second Amendment is a saving provision in connection with pensions and is for the protection of individuals.
The third Amendment is also a saving provision which ensures the terms on which certain persons holding British gas stock are not affected by the repeal of the 1948 Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 8

REPEALS

Lords Amendment: No. 14, in page 85, line 11, at end insert:


14 Geo. 6. C. 39.
The Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.
In Schedule 5, the entries relating to the Gas Act 1948.

Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest that we discuss at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 15 to 17.
Before explaining briefly the purpose of the Amendments, may I again, as I did on Third Reading and in Committee,

thank my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite for the very thorough manner in which the Bill has been gone through and improved because of our deliberations. I pay tribute particularly to the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), who have played a leading part from the Opposition Front Bench in the passage of the Bill.
These Amendments, as is obvious from the face of them, tidy up the references to gas in previous legislation. This makes it slightly easier for anybody who is trying to consult that legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

TUBE INVESTMENTS, WALSALL (PLANT CLOSURE)

10.13 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: Just over a month ago, on 28th June, a bombshell exploded in Walsall when an announcement was made that Tube Investments' stainless tubes plant would be shut down and 1,400 men would be made redundant.
This is the most serious blow to Walsall for 50 years. It has created a shock wave, not only in Walsall, but throughout the West Midlands, because everybody thought that Tube Investments' plant was an example of up-to-date plant in a sophisticated industry which would have a great future.
The fact that the directors of Tube Investments have decided to close this modern plant sends a fear around the West Midlands, because there are now so many other plants which are not so modern, which are not in such sophisticated industries, and which could be "for the chop" if the chop is applied to Tube Investments' plant in Walsall.
As I say, this will produce 1,400 redundancies itself, but the effect does not stop there, because many sub-contractors supply these works. If the works are closed and no alternative employment is found, the earning capacity will be so reduced that it will have consequential effects on employment in Walsall. It is reliably estimated that the extra redundancies created could well be as many as 1,000. This gives a total redundancy figure of up to 2,400 as a result of the plant being closed. Already unemployment in and around Walsall is extremely serious and numbers about 5,200 in the town and district. The effect of the closure could increase redundancy by about 50 per cent., and in anybody's language that is a serious position. The effect on the town will be so great that Walsall Town Council is united in its opposition to the closure, and that opposition includes both political parties represented on the council.
At a protest demonstration held by the workers a few weeks ago the deputy mayor himself marched through the town and the mayor attended a protest meeting. I am very sad to hear tonight that the mayor, Alderman Wilkins, has just died, and I wish to express my condolences to his family. It was a very fine gesture for the mayor to attend the demonstration although his health was not 100 per cent. perfect at the time. The mayor's action had the full support of his colleagues because they knew how great the impact of the closure would be on the town. The council has requested the Secretary of State to receive a deputation, and I hope that the Minister will be able to announce tonight that his right hon. Friend has agreed to do so.
What are the ostensible reasons for the decision to close the plant? The company says it is because of foreign competition and the lack of orders. Frankly, these excuses are the typical refuge of a badly run concern. The recent devaluation of the pound should help a great deal in the fight against foreign competition. Walsall prices should now be lower and more competitive than those of Stuttgart or Stockholm. Confidence in the management of the Walsall Tube Investments' plant would be much undermined by a full page advertisement which was placed by the company in the Walsall Observer a week or so ago. A director of the firm, Mr. Frost, heads his advertisement:
Our aim is to reduce risk to jobs.
What a facile statement to make when it is clear in the sixth sentence of the announcement that the decision to close the works will not be reversed. Reduce the risk to jobs, indeed. His statement is cold comfort to 1,400 men when it is clear from the text that there are only 150 jobs in the other Tube Investments plant and therefore very few of the redundant men can expect to get jobs in other parts of the company.
An analysis of the official statement by the company throws doubts on the decision of the directors themselves that the viability of the plant is supposed to be in doubt. Figures filed by the company make clear that Tube Investments, Walsall, made a net profit of £274,000


in 1969, a return on investment of 8·3 per cent. In 1970 the net profit was £170,000, a return of 4·4 per cent.
Indeed, the parent company makes a substantial return. In 1970 and 1971 the total profit of Tube Investments was £13 million and £10 million respectively, a handsome return of 14·8 per cent. and 13·6 per cent. Compared with the results of other industrial combines, that is very good. Therefore, we can imagine that Tube Investments is in a good position to carry its Walsall plant through perhaps an awkward time, particularly as it has invested nearly £2 million in the plant during the past two years. It is now saying that in 1971 the Walsall plant made a loss of £122,000, or £65,000 after a tax credit from the year before. But in that year the depreciation figure was increased by £110,000 and the audit fee by £36,000, a total increase of £146,000. If the accountants had made some adjustments of those two flexible figures, the results could easily have been shown as a surplus.
Now we come to the current year. The celebrated "Reduce risk to jobs" Mr. Frost says that the loss will be £400,000, but that figure could be as artificial as the 1971 result. What is the allowance for depreciation in it? What are the prices charged for inter-company transactions? The results of the firm must depend to some extent on what is charged to other parts of the Tube Investments group. Mr. Frost cannot expect the workers of this factory to be fobbed off with excuses. Even if his prognostications are correct, and there is a loss of £400,000 a year, this is only the second year of the loss, and with a modern up-to-date plant like that one could expect that Tube Investments would keep it going until it could get to grips with the problems of demand.
I turn now to a most serious allegation which is being made by responsible trade union officials. This concerns the long-length seamless tube capacity of the plant, which is the only one in the United Kingdom capable of making the special tubes required for the nuclear power industry. It is not only the best plant in Europe but perhaps the best in the world for producing such tubes. It is

being suggested that under arrangements for the future of atomic energy a deal has been made and the plant has been shut down so that the business can be transferred to the French in return for concessions to British industry. I do not know whether the allegation is true or false, but the Government must make their position clear tonight in answer to the rumours which are creating such concern. The Government must also say what is their policy for the future of the process plant industry in Britain, because Tube Investments, Walsall, has depended on process plant.
Even more important, what are the Government doing about the power plant orders now required for the CEGB? In particular, what are they doing about the future of the nuclear power industry in Britain? I know that the problems are complex, but uncertainty is playing into the hands of our competitors, particularly the Americans. This country's investment in nuclear power technology is second-to-none in the world. We have a wonderful opportunity not only to build nuclear power plants which could meet our own power requirements in Britain but, if we make the right decisions now, we can organise our industry to take advantage of the increasing demand abroad for nuclear power plants.
I recognise that the performance so far has been disappointing. There has been no lack of trying, but now we are reaching the position where our experience is beginning to pay off. The Central Electricity Generating Board has acknowledged that the cost of producing electrical power from nuclear plant in Britain is now less than the cost of many other alternative forms of power. With the increased price of oil and the increased price of fuel generally, it will be more economic to install nuclear power plants than conventional power stations. The opportunity is, therefore, there to have a viable nuclear power industry in Britain, and to use it as the springboard for sales abroad. This will give us as taxpayers an opportunity to get a return on the hundreds of millions of pounds of investment that we have put into the industry.
The lack of decision by the Government on the future of the nuclear power


industry is having a direct effect on the situation of components suppliers like Tube Investments at Walsall and it is therefore relevant that this issue should be raised in the debate tonight. An early decision by the Government is necessary; this delay is intolerable. The Vinter Committee, which has been studying the nuclear power industry, was set up as long ago as spring 1971, and it presented its report to the Secretary of State early this year. What have the Government been doing with the report?
I hope that the Minister will give an assurance to the House tonight that an announcement will be made about the Government's policy for the future of the nuclear power industry in Britain before we rise for the recess. Industry generally is anxious for their decision, and Tube Investments at Walsall is directly concerned. A clear announcement before next week could help to avert the closure of this plant, and an order for a nuclear power plant before we rise for the recess would also help to ensure that Tube Investments at Walsall does not close.
To their credit, the Government have intervened to secure employment on Clydeside following the collapse of UCS. They have even gone to the extent of bringing in an American firm, with an inducement of over £6 million. The Government have intervened in the Rolls-Royce situation to save jobs in Derby. I want the Minister and the Government to understand that in the minds of Walsall people Tube Investments is as important to Walsall as is UCS to Clydeside and Rolls-Royce to Derby.
The Government are responsible for producing the economic malaise which is creating so much unemployment, lack of investment and lack of job opportunities. In particular areas where the effects of unemployment are so serious and where there are major shutdowns the Government have acted, and I implore the Government to act in this case, as they have elsewhere, before disaster strikes. I want them to act to help to save the jobs of 1,400 skilled men in Walsall.

10.28 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: We are grateful to the right hon.

Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) for bringing up this subject for debate. I am sure his interest will be extremely well received by his future constituents, as it is by me. But we have to remember that we are not addressing ourselves to the management of Tube Investments but to the Minister, and it is to the Minister that I wish to address my remarks.
I have no brief for Tube Investments, but I cannot believe that after an investment of £1¾ million less than two years ago it has abandoned that investment overnight for other than strictly commercial reasons. In my capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, I am aware that the British Steel Corporation is facing exactly the same problems at the tube factory in Newport.
Speaking without any deep knowledge, I suspect that there is considerable over-capacity for the production of steel tube in this country and, unfortunately, the workers in that industry are now having to face this horrible situation. It is a horrible situation. I agree absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman. According to my calculation, Walsall has an unemployment rate of 4·7 at the moment. That is above the average for the rest of the Midlands and above the average for the country. If we add these further figure the total will be 7 per cent. In the whole 18 years in which I have represented Walsall, we have never had such a situation. This is a crisis situation which must be dealt with on a crisis basis.
We are addressing ourselves to the Minister. What can he do? First, there are about 80 apprentices included in these 1,400 people. Obviously it is necessary that their training should be continued in other forms. I hope that the Ministry is paying special attention to that. Secondly, I believe that Tube Investments have indicated that they could absorb 150 to 200 from Walsall in other activities. If there can be encouragement to local industry, particularly by more generous provision of industrial development certificates in Willenhall, Walsall and Darlston, that would be generally welcome and would bring extra local employment. Thirdly, the Industry Bill is not yet on the Statute Book, but I believe that the Minister will have powers


under that Measure to deal with an area of specially high unemployment, which will be the position of Walsall very shortly.
These are all matters which require the direct attention of the Minister. He cannot allow the House to rise for the holiday with the thought that we are to have an unemployment rate of 7 per cent. in a town which is the workshop of the West Midlands. For one of the great workshops of England, an unemployment rate of 7 per cent. would be very painful and would reflect deeply on the Government. I hope and believe that the Minister has constructive suggestions to put before us. I must tell him that unless he has it will be a grave disappointment to members of his party from whom over the years he has had unflinching support.
Finally, I join with the right hon. Member for Wednesbury in paying tribute to the Mayor of Walsall, a very distinguished citizen, whose death I join in lamenting.

10.34 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): In the short time I have to reply to this debate, I start by expressing the Government's regret at the sudden death of the Mayor of Walsall. I am sure that all hon. Members would wish that the condolences of the House should be expressed to his wife and family in this considerable tragedy.
I of course realise the concern of the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) over this problem. The closure has been described as a tragedy, but tragedy has been defined as conflict of right with right. It is right that, as far as possible, people should be spared the upheaval and anxiety that redundancy and possible unemployment would bring. But it is no less right that companies should operate efficiently and make such changes in their operation as may from time to time seem necessary. It is right that companies should be able to rationalise their production so that they

can produce and compete because if they do not take those steps nothing can keep them in business.
I do not regard myself in any way as an advocate or an apologist for Tube Investments. The management has made certain decisions and it is their right to do so; in fact, their job to do so. However, since the consequences of these decisions affect a large number of people, I thought it right to discuss the overall problem with the senior management, and this I did on Tuesday. I can announce that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary dealing with industrial development will be seeing a deputation. I am not certain of the date, but I believe it will be 16th August.
Let me now, in what I hope will be a reasonable speech, take to task the right hon. Gentleman for one specific statement which he made. He said that if this plant closes other plants in the West Midlands will be for the chop. I must point out to him in all seriousness that that is a dangerous and damaging statement. It is not inclined to assist investment coming into the West Midlands or to Walsall. I think that he will perhaps regret that statement and its overall implication.

Mr. Stonehouse: What I was doing was bringing to the attention of the House the fears which are being expressed in the area.

Mr. Emery: What I am saying is that by repeating that the right hon. Gentleman himself, with his very considerable prestige as a Privy Councillor, lends weight to the statement, and I would hope that he would stop its circulation, because it is, as I said, dangerous and damaging.
I would meet one of the right hon. Gentleman's other requests immediately, and that is to confirm from the Government's point of view that there is no truth in the view which is being expressed that a deal has been done or carried through that because of nuclear decisions or for other reasons certain production should be transferred from Walsall to the French or to Europe. I think it is important that that should be known at this moment.
The announcement on 29th June that the works was to close certainly came as a shock, but it could not as has been suggested by certain people have come as a complete surprise, certainly not to the workers' representatives. Since the early months of this year the management has said in its periodical meetings with trade unionists and with the shop stewards that the trading position was difficult and that the future of the factory was by no means assured. The management has carried on consultations at those meetings with union representatives. Unhappily the decision has now had to be made to close.
It has been suggested that the Government should in some way step in to prevent the closure from happening. The Government have no powers, and I do not believe that they should have powers, to dictate to industry to carry out work in a particular place, or to demand that unprofitable plant should be kept in operation. It is dictators who dictate, not this Government. The Government have no intention of seeking powers of that sort over industry, or of seeking powers over individuals to compel them to work for one firm rather than another or in one town rather than another.
Another suggestion, on the face of it more reasonable, is that the Government should consider what orders could be placed for work concerned with nuclear energy or what help might be given in other ways under the Industry Bill. I should point out that special tubing for nuclear power use is only part of the capacity of the Walsall works and T.I's plans for relocating work at Chesterfield and Blaenrhondda represent no more than a marginal reduction in overall capacity.
The management is anxious that the run-down of the Plant, if it must come, should be carried through in an orderly fashion. Everyone would be the gainer by that. The Department of Employment's services can be brought into play to help all those affected to find new jobs suitable to their needs. Opportunities to transfer to other plants within the Tube Investments Group can be made available. I would refer to the point

made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South and say that the figure of 150 is an under-estimate of jobs which should be retained. The figure presented to me was that TI would provide 400 jobs within its own organisation if it had to carry through the rundown.
All the time, the management must keep a sharp eye open for opportunities to dispose of the site and buildings as a going operation. At any time an opportunity to sell could arise, in part or as a whole, as an operating works or for adaptation or redevelopment. Any of these possibilities—they are no more than possibilities, but they must not be dismissed on that account—could create new prospects. The Government would wish to give their assistance if a scheme on those lines could be worked out.
I do not belittle the very real anxieties and worries of the people affected by the proposed closure. I was unemployed for a time, and I realise what it means to pound the pavement, the frustration, the terrifying feeling that this has, especially for family men with their commitments. But I ask the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend to use their considerable influence to ensure that those understandable anxieties do not find an outlet in a blank refusal to co-operate for the common good. If change is coming it is better to go along with it than to stand and be overwhelmed by it.
Walsall has much to offer an incoming industrialist, not least a labour force which is skilful, intelligent and adaptable. Those qualities are a tremendous selling point for Walsall. It would be a thousand pities if those were to be marred by a lack of co-operation, since that would most likely deter any industrialist who might be considering a location in Walsall.
I leave the management's authority to say that even at this late stage, after this debate, they are prepared to consider any proposals from the unions for continuing activities in the works. I hope that possibility will be explored fully.
If closure still appears the only answer, there will be full co-operation in ensuring that it takes place with the


minimum of personal distress. I hope my appeal will be properly taken at the conclusion of this debate.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Minister comment on the Vinter Report? When is it likely to be released?

Mr. Emery: This is not a debate on the Vinter Committee—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.